
Class _ £ '^ *r 5 

Book .VgNVs 



\v 



D> Uo 



THE 



STATUS OF THE NEGRO 

IN VIRGINIA 
During the Colonial Period. 

BY 

GERALD MONTGOMERY WEST, M.A. 



WILLIAM R. lENKINS, 

851 & 853 Sixth Avenue, 

New York. 






Submitted as one of the Requirements for the i 

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the j 
School of Political Science, 

Columbia College. i 



j: 



i*i 



=^4'. 




?•--;: 



^X: 



By trtknsfbir 
NUV 8 1915 




Ill 



CONTENTS. 

Chaptbb I. The Fundamental Laws of the Colonies 1 

§ 1 . Colonial Charters 1 

§ 2 . Villeinage G 

§ 3 . English Laws 8 

Chattkb n. The Colonial Laws 13 

§ 1 . Kelating to the Importation of Negroes 

(A) 1620-1748 13 

(B) 1748-1775 19 

§ 2. Status of Imported Persons 

(A) 1620-1748 22 

(B) 1748-1775 25 

§ 3. Slaves as Property 

(A) 1620-1748 26 

(B) 1748-1775 29 

§ 4. Runaways 

(A) 1620-1748 32 

(B) 1748-1775 35 

§ 5 . Laws against Insurrection 

(A) 1620-1748 38 

(B) 1748-1775 39 

§6. Punishments for Various Offenses. 

(A) 1620-1748 40 

(B) 1748-1775 42 

§ 7. Trials of Slaves 

(A) 1620-1748 43 

(B) 1748-1775 44 

§ 8. Peculium of Slaves 47 

§ 9. Miscellaneous Laws Relating to Slaves. . 47 
§10. Emancipation of Slaves 

(A) 1620-1748 48 

(B) 1748-1775 49 



§ 11. Freemen 

(A) 1620-1748 52 

(B) 1748-1775 5G 

Chaftee in. The luterregmim (1775-1776) 59 

Chapter IV. The Colonial Church and the Negro 61 

Chapter V. The Negro Population of Virginia 71 

APPENDIX. 

{A.) Form of Royal Assent to an Act of Assembly 73 

{B.) Certificate of Oath of Capture of Runaways 74 

(C) Governor's Proclamation Reisealing Colonial Statutes. . . 75 




-^ ^ 1 




THE STATUS OF THE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA 
DURING THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 



CHArTEIl I. 
Fundamental Law op the Colonies. 

"About tho last of August camo in a Dutch man of warre 
that soKl us twenty uegars," wrote John llolfo in 1G19'. 

Thus, briefly and incidentally, was chronicled an event 
fraught with such momentous results — tho introduction of 
slavery into tho Anglo-American colonies. 

In order to determine the legal condition of the negro at 
this, his first and enforced appearance in those colonies, as well 
as 8ub.soqucntly, it will bo necessary to examine tho various 
charters of tho colonies and the English common and statute 
law. 

§ L COLONLVL CiLVKTERS. 

It is a matter of common knowledge that all English col- 
onies planted in America between the thirty-fourth and forty- 
fifth parallels of north latitude, with the possible exception, 
for a short time, of the Puritan settlement, made at Plymouth 
in 1G'20, were under charters granted by tho crown of England 
which fixed and defined tho limits of their territory and the 
extent of their powers of self-government, and which subse- 
quently at various times were altered and amended. 

Tho first charter* was that granted to Sir Walter Raleigh in 
1584, and was a general commission to make settlomouts when 
and where he might be able within certain limits, and granted 
to him, his heirs and assigns, the right to make all statutes, 

' JolTerson's BoportB, Vn., p. 119, Nolo. EnRllsh Scholar's Library, Capt. 
John Smith's Works, 1C08 31, p. 611. (1020 A D., Kent's Comraontarios, 
Vol. II., p 2r,(;,) 

> Fooro's Constitutions, p. 1381. 



laws and ordinances for the government of any colony he or 
his heirs and assigns might found ; " So always as the said 
statutes, lawes and ordinances may be,so neere as conveniently 
may be, agreeable to the forme of the lawes, statutes, govern- 
ment or policie of England." 

In 1606 a new charter was issued called the First Charter 
of Virginia.' Under this the colonies were to be governed 
"according to such laws, ordinances and instruments as 
shall be, in that behalf, given and signed with our (the King's) 
hand or signmauual, and pass under the Privy Seal of our 
Eealme of England." This was followed, in 1609, by the second 
charter of Yirginia,' which granted to the colonists the right 
to punish, pardon and rule, "according to such orders, ordin- 
ances, constitutions, directions and instructions as by our said 
council as aforesaid, shall be established ; and in defect thereof, 
in case of necessity, according to the good discretion of the 
said governor and officers respectively as well in cases capital 
and criminal, as civil both marine and other, so always as the 
said statutes, ordinances, and proceedings, as near as con- 
veniently may be, be agreeable to the laws, statutes, govern- 
ment and policy of this our Eealm of England." 

This, again, was succeeded in lGll-12 by the third and last 
charter of Virginia,' which granted to the " Four Great and 
General Courts of the Council and Company of Adventurers for 
Virginia " the " full power and authority to ordain and make 
such laws and ordinances, for the good and welfare of the said 
Plantation, as to them from time to time, shall be thought 
requisite and meet ; so always as the same be not contrary to 
the laws and statutes of this our Realm of England." 

All the other charters had the same provisions, with, in 
some cases, slight modification of expression. Thus the 
charter to the New England Company in 1620,^ granted to the 
council of the company " full power and authority .... 
to make.ordaine and establish all manner of orders,laws,direc- 
tions, constitutions, forms and ceremonies of government and 
magistracy, fit and necessary for and concerning the govern- 

• Poore's Constitutions, p. 1890. 
2 IbiQ, p. 1901. 

' Ibid, p. 1905. 

* Ibid, p. 925, 



meut of tho said colony and plantation, so always, as tho samo 
bo not contrary to tho laws ami statutes of this our Realm of 
England. " The action of all officers of tho colony was lim- 
ited in tho same manner. Tho first charter of the Massachu- 
setts Bay Colony," in 1G29, grants to tho colony assembled with 
the Governor or Lieutenant Governor, tho same powers, " boe 
AS such lawes and ordinances be not contrarie or repugnanto 
to the lawes and statutes of this our Roulmo of England." 
Tho second charter of Massachusetts Bay, If)'.)!,- grants similar 
powers, " 80 as the same be not repugnant or contrary to the 
laws of this our Realm of England." The Explanatory Charter 
of Mussaciiusetts Bay,' 1720,makes no alteration in this clause. 

The grant of New Hampshire,' in 1629, empowered "Captain 
John Mason, his heirs and assigns, to establish a government 
which shall have power to govern agreeably, as near as may 
be, to the laws and customs of tho Realm of England." 
Tho grant to New Hampshire," made in 1G35, gave full 
judicial and julmiuistrative autliority, " according to the laws 
of England as neere as may bee." By the royal commission" aj)- 
pointed in 1G80, the New Hampshire colony was to be 
governed by " tho judgement of the Council, sitting as a Court 
of Record, to bo as nearly in accordance with tho laws and 
statutes of this our Realm of England, as tho present state and 
condition of our subjects inhabiting within tlio limits aforesaid, 
and the circumstances of the place will admit." Tho General 
Assembly' was empowered to make laws subject to the pleasure 
of tho King to confirm, modify or disallow them. 

The charter of Maryland,'* 1632, granted to Lord Baltimore 
the power to make all laws, ordinances, Ac, " Ita iamen qtuxl 
leges pnvdicUe sint rationi consoncc et mm sint rcpwjnnntes 
ncc contrarim sed — (jiuxul convenienter Jieri pcterit — ccmsentanem 
legibus, stalutia, consueltuUnilms ac juribus hvjus liegni nostri 
Angliee." The charter of Connecticut," 1662, empowered the 

' Pooro's Constitutions, p. 937. 

' Ibid. p. 951. 

' Ibid. p. 954. 

♦ Ibid, p. 1272. 

» Ibid, p. 127-1. 

« Ibid, p. 1276. 

7 Ibid. p. 1278. 

» Ibid, p. 813. 

» Ibid. p. 265. 



Governor or Deputy-Governor and six assistants, " to make, 
ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable 
laws, statutes, ordinances, directions and institutions, not con- 
trary to the law of this Eealm of England." The grant of the Prov- 
ince of Maine,' 1639, placed all law-making power in the hands 
of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, his heirs and assigns, and also in 
the Assembly of Freeholders, " so a^ the same ordinances be 
reasonable and not repugnant nor contrary, but as neere as may 
bee, agreeable to the laws and statutes of our Kingdom of 
England." The grants of Maine in 16G4 and 1G74 to the Duke 
of Tork,^ were restricted in the same way, " so always as the 
same (laws) be not contrary to the laws and statutes of this 
our Realm of England, but as neere as may be agreeable there- 
unto." By the Patent^ of 1643, Providence Plantation received 
full power to make all laws and ordinances ; " Provided never- 
theless, that the said lawes, constitutions and punishments, 
for the civil government of the said plantation be confoVmablo 
to the laws of England, as far as the nature and constitution 
of the place will permit." The charter of Rhode Island and 
Providence Plantation,* 1663, gave the Governor and assistants 
the same power, " so as such laws, ordinances and constitu- 
tions, so made, be not contrary or repugnant unto, but as near 
as may be agreeable to the laws of our Realm of England, con- 
sidering the nature and constitution of the place and the 
people there." The charter of Pennsylvannia, granted by 
Charles II. to William Penn^ in 1682, confers the same powers 
subject to the same limitations. When, in 1701, Pennsylvania 
and Delaware were separated, Penn confirmed to each of them 
respectively, all the liberties and privileges granted jointly to 
them in this charter " any laws, or customs of the Government 
or General Assembly to the contrary, notwithstanding."" 
Finally the charter of Georgia,' granted in 1632, gave to the 
Corporation assembled for that purpose, the power to "form 
and prepare laws, statutes, and ordinances, fit and necessary 

1 Pooro's Constitutions, p. 777. 

2 Ibid, p. 784. 

3 Ibid, p. 1595. 

4 Ibid, p. 1598. 

6 Colonial Records, Vol. I., Introductory Documents, p. ix. 

6 Poore's Constitutions, pp. 15-10 and 273. 

7 Ibid, p. 374. 



• 



) 



for mill eonccriiiiif:; tlio goviininoiit of tlio said colony, ami 
not roinignant to the laws ami statntos of Enj^land." 

The Carolina cliartors' of ICtlV.i and 1005 vested in tlio pro- 
prietors of the province, with tlio consent of the free men, the 
rif^ht to luako all laws, ordinances, Ac, " PitovmED nevektiie- 
LESS, that said laws 1)0 consonant to reason and, as near as 
may bo conveniently, agreeable to the laws and customs of 
this our lloalin of England." The " Fundamental Constitu- 
tions" of Carolina, KiOl), drawn up by John Locke, was but 
partly put into operation and was finally repealed in 1093. In 
this wo find the first and only allusion to slaves or slaverj-. 
Si:cl{on 107' of this constitution saj-s, "Since charity obliges 
ns to wish well to the souls of all men, and religion ought to 
alter nothing in any man's civil estate or right, it shall bo law- 
ful for slaves, as well as others, to enter themselves, and bo of 
what church or profession any of them shall think best, and, 
therefore, bo as fully members as any freemen. But yet no 
slavo shall hereby be exempted from tho civil dominion his 
master hath over him, but in all things in tho same state and 
condition be was in before." Section IIQ' says, " Kvery 
freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority 
over his negro slaves of what opinion or religion soever." 

In order to encourage trade and immigration, regulations of 
a more or less restrictive nature were incorporated in all tho 
charters. Tho provision in Penn's charter on this head is ct)m- 
mon to them all in spirit, if not in language. "And fuktheb- 
MonE,' that our subjects may be thus rather encouraged to 
nndertako this expedition with ready and cheerful minds ; 
Know Ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and 
mere motion, do give and grant by virtue of these presents as 
well unto the said William Penn, and his heirs, as to all others 
who from time to time repair into the said country, with a pur- 
])oso to inhabit there, or to trade with tho natives of said 
countrj", full license to trade and freight in any ports what- 
soever of us, our heirs and successors, according to tho laws 
made or to be made within our Kingdom of England, and into 

> Pooro's CoriHlltulioiiH, pp. i:m'J and 13Mi. 

1 Il.ld. p. Il(>7. 

3 Ibl<l. p 1-108. 

* Culonlal Records, Vol. I., Iiilroduclory Documoiits, p. xvlil. 



the said coviutry by tbem, tlieir servants and assigns, to trans- 
port all and singular tlieir wares, goods and merchandise, as 
likewise, all sorts of grain whatsoever, and all other things 
whatsoever necessary for food or clothing, not prohibited by 
the laws and statutes of our Kingdom and Dominions, to be 
carried out of the said Kingdom without any let or molesta- 
tion of us, our heirs and successors, or of any the officers of us, 
our heirs and successors," the right to lay duties only 
excepted. 



§ 2. Villeinage. 

Examination of the charters shows that in none of the 
colonies was there any sanction of slavery, unless it could be 
shown that slavery existed in England or was permissible by 
its laws. 

The only slavery or approach to slavery in England after 
the Norman conquest, was the system of villeinage. The 
villeins were divided into two classes, villeins regardant, that 
is annexed to the laud or manor, and villeins in gross, or at 
large, that is annexed to the person of the lord and transferable 
by deed from one owner to another.' Bractou says of villeins, 
" illc qui tend in vilknagio sive liber sive scrvus, faciei de 
villcnagio quicquid ei prcRceptum fuerit, nee scire debeat sero quid 
foicere debeat in crastino, et semper tenebitur ad inccrta.'^ The 
villein was excepted from Magna Charta, for "nullus liber homo 
capiatur vel imprisonctur."'-^ Nevertheless, the villein was not 
a slave. The law protected him, as the King's subject, against 
any severe or permanent injury by his lord. The lord might 
neither kill nor maim him. For the killing or maiming of the 
villein and for the murder of his ancestor there was an action 
against his lord.^ The lord was also subject to an indictment 
in such cases.'* In an action he, the villein, was answerable to 
all men and all men to him, and with respect to any other than 

iLitt. S. 181. 
2Bracton, 1. 4, c. 28, t 5. 

3 Cotton's Posthuma, p . 223 ; Magna Charta, § 39 ; Stubb's Select Char- 
ters, 301 . 
1 Litt. S. 189, 194. 
6 Ibid, S. 194. 



bis master ho was as a froemau.' The villein mi(;lit bo mann- 
mitted, niul so eager was the law on tlio part of liUorty that it 
caught at every opportunity to presume uiauumissiou. Thus, 
where a loril gave his villein a bond, an annuity, or estate in 
fee, for life, or for a term of years, ho was held to have freed 
him.' So also if ho brought an action against hini,^ for these 
acts wore considered to be inconsistent with servitude. Vil- 
leinage was also divided into ])ure, " ;<M>um viUmaglnm," and 
privileged, " villcnoijium privihyiotum," or " S(xxi<jijnn villtnium," 
the former was base and iincertain as to quality and 
quantity, the latter was base but certain. " ViUcimgiorum 

aliiul i>urum, <iliwl privUcgiotutn Qui temt in (puroj villmagio 

faciei quiciinid t'i pra'aptuiii fucrit ct hnjusmoiU villani sok- 

tnanni vHlana aulrm faciunt servitia, ted certa, H ddcrmindtu.* 

Villeins gradually changed into tenants by Copy of Court Roll,'" 
copyholders, so that it was said by Sir Thomas Smith, Secre- 
tary to Edward VI., that in his time ho know of no villeins in 
gross throughout the Kingdom, and villeins regardant were 
only hold by ecclesiastical corporations/' Tenure in villeinage 
was practically abolished by a statute of Charles II." The 
last recorded ca.se of villeinage regardant being in the fifteenth 
year of King James I. while the last " concession " of villein- 
age was, says Lord Mansfield, in the nineteenth year of King 
Henry VI." 

Thus it appears that villeinage in gross, the nearest ap- 
proach to slavery, had disappeared from England one hundred 
and fifty years before the introduction of the first negroes into 
the Colonies, and villeinage regardant had been practically 
merged into copyhold, neither having been actual slavery, 
for villeinage and not slaverj' was legal in England.' So it 
would appear that as slavery was not permitted hy the law of 
England,'" and as the colonies were forbidden to pass any laws 

« Lltt. 8. 189. 
»Ibl<t. 201,206,200. 
>Ibl(l, 2(iH. 

♦ Bracton, L 4., c. 28, \ 5. 
»a ninckstono, •96. 

• 2 Il.lil, 'VS. 

1 12, Charles II., Chnp. xjtiv. 
' Somerset '8 ('nso. Lodl's Roports, 1 . 
» Holt, 0. J., 5 Mod Hop , 1H2 

•0 2 L«v.. 201 ; 3. Ibid, 33G ; 2 Salk, GCC; 5 Mod. Rop., 182; 2 Rftjm, m\, 
Loflt's Reports, 1 . 



8 

or do any act not in accordance with the law of England, and 
as the introduction of slaves into the colonies was not author- 
ized by any laws then existing, nor, as subsequently, by royal 
permission, therefore these negroes of 1619, at least, were 
legally freemen, and might have obtained their liberty by 
habeas corpus proceedings. 

Slavery was derived from and entirely consonant with the 
civil law.' The introduction into England of equity, which was 
influenced largely by the " Corpus Juris Civilis," was jeal- 
ously opposed by the Commons and by the Common Law 
Courts in the reigns of Eichard II, Henry IV, and Henry VI, 
but was upheld by the Crown. In the reign of James I, a 
further attempt was made by Lord Coke to prevent the inter- 
ference of the Chancellors, but again the matter was decided 
by the King in favour of Equity Jurisdiction.- Therefore any 
rules of law looking to the establishment of slavery such as 
was permitted by the civil law would be, and were, doubly 
obnoxious, even though introduced by statute. For example, in 
the Eeign of Edward VI, idle vagabonds were by statute 
reduced to absolute slavery,^ but so intolerable was this to 
Englishmen's ideas of justice and right, even in the case of the 
most abandoned rogues, that within two years the statute was 
repealed.* 

§ 3. English Laws. 

Ou examining the English cases as to the rights of masters 
over the persons of their slaves while in England, we find a 
conflict of opinions. The earlier cases generally holding that 
such rights continued. These decisions were actually enforced 
on various grounds. The cases were usually actions for trover, 
the negroes having run away or having been taken away from 
their masters. The first of these was in the tweutj'-ninth year 
of Charles II. Here the action was sustained on the ground 
of the custom of merchants in the Colonies.^ In the next case, 

> 20 Johns. Kep., 1. 

2 Earl of Oxford's Case, 1 Ch. Rep. 1 ; 2 Leading Case in En , 504, (601 ; 
4th Enplsh Ed) 
' 1 Ed., VI., Chap. iii. 
* 3, and 4 Ed. VI.. Chap. xvi. 
5 Butts V. Penny, 2 Lev., 201 



9 

in the fourth year of William and Mary, the court was of 
opinion that trover wouKl not lie, " thouj^h it seemed to think 
that in trespass qnare captivum suum cepit the plaintiff mij^ht 
give in evidence that the part}" was his negro and he bought 
him : " ' while in the fifth year of William and Mary it was held 
that the negro might be a slave, " because negroes are 
heathens," and trover would therefore lie.' In the seventh 
year of William and Mary it was declared that while slavery 
was not legal in England, yet the Colonies might make laws 
establishing it as a local custom, such as prevailed in some 
parts of England, for example, Stanneries and Gavelkind.* It 
was held in the Michaelmas Term of the fourth year of Queen 
Anne,* and also in the Easter Term following that trover 
would not lie in such cases.' In the twenty-second year of 
George II it was again held that trover would lie. Fiually in 
the E;ister term of the twelfth year of George HI occurred the 
celebrated case of James Somersett.' James Somersett having 
been made a slave in Africa, was sold there and was then 
brought to Virginia, where he was again sold and his master 
brought him to England. There he made his escape, but was 
recaptured by his master and confined upon the ship of a Cap- 
tain Knowles. On application. Lord Mansfield issued a writ of 
Habeas Corpus, and the return not being in the opinion of the 
Court sufficient, the negro was relea-sed. In his decision 
Lord Mansfield said : " The state of slavery is of such a nature 
that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral 
or political, but only positive law, which preserves its force 
long after reason.?, occasion, and time itself, from which it was 
created, is erased from memory. It is so odious that nothing 
can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever 
inconveniences therefore may follow from a decision, I cannot 
say this case is allowed or approved by the laws of England, 
and therefore the black must be discharged." This was the 
determining opinion, and therefore Blackstone says, referring 

« Chambers v. Walkhouse, 3 Lev., 336. 

> 1 Lord B«y. 147. 

5 5 Mod. Bep., 182. 

« Smith -. Hrowii A G>op«r. 2 Salk, 666; Smith v. OoulJ, 2 ILId. 6CC. 

» Smith :■ Goulil, 2 Baym, T-Tl. 

* Lofft'8 Report, 1 . 



10 

to the doctrine tliat baptism ipso facto conferred freedom : 
" The law of England acts upon general and extensive prin- 
ciples ; it gives Uberty, rightly understood, that is, protection 
to a Jew, a Tui'k, as well as to those who profess the true reli- 
gion of Christ ; and it will not dissolve a civil obligation 
between master and servant, on account of the alteration of 
faith in either of the parties, but the slave is entitled to the 
same protection in England before, as after, baptism ; and 
whatever service the heathen negro owed of right to his 
American master, bv general, not by local law, the same, 
whatever it be, is he bound to render when brought to Eng- 
land and made a christian."' 

Sir John Hawkins was the first English slave-trader. He 
introduced the traffic in 1562 ; the slaves being carried to and 
sold in the West Indies. The trade was fostered by the English 
Government. It having been represented to Charles the 
Second that the American Colonies required more labourers 
than could safely be spared from the population of England, 
he invited his subjects to subscribe to a joint stock company, to 
supply negroes to the Colonies. This trade and the various 
companies of Englishmen carrying it on were frequently recog- 
nized by English statutes.- The last statute, entitled " An 
Act for the Extending and Improving the Trade to Africa," 
read as follows : " Whereas, the trade to and from Africa is 
very advantageous to Great Britain and necessary for the sup- 
plying the Plantations and Colonies thereunto belonging with a 
sufficient number of negroes at reasonable rates ; and for that 
purpose the trade ought to be free and open to all His 
Majesty's subjects ; Therefore, be it enacted, <fcc." 

" But it shall be lawful for the said committee to carry on 
or cause to be carried on or exported from Africa any Negroes 
or other goods, <fcc." § 20. 

" And be it exacted by the authority aforesaid. That it 
shall and may be lawful for any of His Majesty's subjects 
trading to Africa, for the security of their goods or slaves, to 
erect houses and warehouses under the protection of the said 
forts, &c." § 28. 

1 1 Black., '425 

J8 Wm. III., Chap. 1; 9 and 10, Wm. III., Chap, xxvi; 23 Geo. II., Chap. 
xxxi; 24Greo. II., Chap, xlix; 25 Geo. II., Chap, xl; 29 Geo. II, Chap. xixi. 



u 

" AXD BE IT n R i HKH EXACTED, by the aothoritj afores&id, 
thftt no commauJers or masters of anj ship tradicg to Africa, 
shall by fraud, force or violence, or by any other indirect 
practice whatever, take on board, or carry away from the 
coast of Africa, any negro or native of the said country, or 
eommit or suffer to be committed, any violence on the natives 
to the prejudice of the said trade." § S9. 

In " An Act for the Encooraf^ment of Seamen, and the 
More Speedy and Effectual Manning His Majesty's Xavy,"' it 
was declared that " Whebkas good and neoessary laws have 
been made and are still in force within several of His Majesty's 
Colonies or Plantations in America for the preventing the car- 
rying off from the said Colonies or Plantations any servant or 
slave, without the consent of the owner, or the carrying off 
from thence of any other person or persons whatsoever, Ac" 

In 1732 was passed " An Act for the More Easy Recovery 
of Debts in His Majesty's Plantations and Colonies in Amer- 
ica."* The fourth section of this act was as follows : " AsD BE 
rr rCBTHEB enacted by the authority aforesaid. That from and 
after the said twenty-ninth i29i day of September, seventeen 
hundred and thirty-two il732>. the hooses, lands, negroes and 
other hereditaments and real estates, situate and bemg within 
any of the said Plantations belonging to any person indebted, 
shall be liable to and chargeable with all just debts, duties 
and demands of what nature or kind so ever, owing by any 
sneh person to His Majesty or any of his subjects, and shall 
and may be assets for the s. f, in like manner 

as real estates are by the la-. . :.__.. ..able to the satis- 
faction of debts due by Bond or other specialty, and shall be 
subject to the like Remedies, Proceedings and Process in any 
court of law or Equity, in any of the said Plantations respec- 
tively, for seizing, extending, selling or disposing of any such 
houses, lands, negroes and other hereditaments and real 
estates towards the satisfaction of such debts, does and -l^- 
mands, and in like manner as personal estates in any o: : 
said plantations are seized, extended, sold or disposed of for 
the satisfaction of debts . " 

< S AniM. Cliap. rxxTii. { 19; 39 Ge>. II.. Chip, xxxir. {31. 
>SU«n.n.Chl>p Tit.i4. 



y 



12 

Thus, practically at least, in and after 1G78, slavery was 
recognized in the Colonies both by statute and by common 
law decisions. But until that time it would seem to have been 
illegal, iiuless it could be held to have arisen by prescription, 
and such an idea would apparently be controverted by the 
decision of Lord Mansfield.' We are therefore compelled to 
the opinion that, though practiced, it ivas illegah 

I Lofft's Keports, 1 . 



CHAPTER II. 
COLONIAL LAWS. 

This period is diviiled, by the revision of the laws which 
took phioe in 1748, into two unequal parts, viz.: 1720 to 1748, 
and 17iS to 1775. Tlio great confusion into which the laws 
had falK'n, through the inharmonious action of successive 
legislatures, was the cause of this change. In some instances, 
notaV)ly in the laws regulating property in slaves, there wa.s 
such confusion and contradiction that it was impossible to tell 
by what tenure a man hold his slaves, and this great uncer- 
tainty opened wide the door to fraud of all kinds until 
business was almost brought to a standstill. 

In 1745 an act' for the revision of the laws of the colonies 
was passed. The commission which had been appointed 
reported in 1748. All the old legislation was wiped out and 
everything began anew. The revised acts of 1748 were not 
to go into effect tintil the tenth of June 1751. They were 
published at first as enacted by the Colonial Assembly, 
without waiting for the royal assent. Certain of them, about 
ten in number, did not meet with the royal approval and were 
repealed by proclamation of the Governor at the King's com- 
mand. Great indignation was expressed throughout the 
colony, and the constitutionality of the repeal was strongly 
(luestioned by the Governor and Assembly,' but the veto was 
enforced and a new edition of the revised laws was published 
in 1762 with the repealed acts omitted. 

§ 1. The Importation of Negroes into Vibginu. 

(A) 1620-1748. As has already been stated, although 
negroes had been imported to Sftonish America by the 
Spaniards anterior to 1505, and at later periods by others, 
including English adventurers, among which latter in bad 
preeminence was Sir John Hawkins, yet not until a " dutch 
man of warre " driven by stress of weather put into James 

1 HennlnK. Vol. V., Lows 17-1.5, Clinp. Iv. 
' Ibid, Profnco, pp. 4 nnil 5. 



14 

Town harbour was slavery introduced into the -^«7^o- American 
Colonies. The exact date, as we have seen is in dispute ; but 
it is a strange fact and worthy of more than the passing notice 
it has received, that the same year and the same spot, that 
saw the introduction of that "foul blot" also witnessed the 
inauguration, on American soil, of those free institutions' of 
which the Anglo-Saxon race so proudly and justly boasts. 
Then began the " irrepressible^conflict " which was to culmin- 
ate two and a half centuries later in one of the most appalling 
political cataclysms the world has even witnessed. 

We find no reference to the slave trade, and indeed little 
to the negro, after his first introduction, until 1659, when a 
law, evidently for the purpose of encouraging the importation 
of negroes, was passed, and here again we meet with the 
Dutch. This act- granted free trade to all people in amity 
with England " Allw.ues provided that if the said Dutch or 
other foreigners shall import any negro slaves, then the said 
Dutch or others shall : for the tobacco really produced by the 
said negroes, pay only the impost of two sliillings ])er hogs- 
head, the like being paid by our own nation." In 1690 we find 
a Colonial political economist putting forth a proposition to 
benefit the world by "making two blades of grass grow where 
one had grown before," by increasing the slave trade. The 
proposition was that the cultivation of Brazilian tobacco 
should be fostered, as more slaves could be bought with it 
on the Guinea coast than with Virginia tobacco.' In the next 
year there is an entry that the slave cargo of a wrecked ship 
was seized by the customs ofiicers, according to the law, and 
sold by them.' In 1696 we find the first law taxing the 
importation of slaves. A tax of twenty shillings was levied on 
all negi'oes imported, the duty to be paid before the negroes 
were landed under penalty of forfeiture.^ The next law 
granted to persons exporting negroes six weeks after their 
entry, a drawback on the duty paid. This law was passed in 

' 111 tliD same year in which the landins ot slaves occurred, the colony 
received the liijht of self-fcovernraent. Vide, English Scholars' Library, 
Capt. John Smith's Works (1608-1631), p. 541 . 

- Ilennin;;, State of Va., Vol. I., Chap, xvi, p. 510. 

3 Calender of State Papers of Va., Vol. I., p. 26. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Henninc;, Statutes, Vol. IT!., Chap. xii. p. 103. 





15 

1701.' The Act of 1696 liannj; expireil, it was revived by chap- 
ter four of the Act of 1702 to lie in force for cue year.' It 
was ajjain revived by the Act of 1705 laying a duty of twenty 
shillings on uegro or other slaves imported, the duty to be paid 
before they were disembarked, and allowing the same draw- 
back if they were exported within six weeks after their entry.' 
Thi.s was repealed by chapter twenty-six of this same Act by 
which an imjxjrt duty of six pence per head was imposed.* 
By a later chapter of this Act it was required that slaves 
should be entered at the regular ports of entry after the 
twenty-fifth of December 1708, under penalty of forfeiture, and 
the sale of anything on shipboard but servants, slaves and 
salt, was forbidden.' In 1710 a Committee of the House of 
Bargesses reported in favour of a bill to lay a duty on negroes 
and liquors,* and in consequence of that report a poll tax of six 
pence was laid on all passengers, servants and slaves debarking 
from any ship." In 1712 the Act of 1705 laying a duty of 
twenty shillings on slaves was revived." In 1715 there is a 
record of a rather curious transaction. It was an agreement 
between Governor Spotswood of Virginia for the Governor of 
South Carolina, on the one hand, and William Dandrige on 
the other, to charter a vessel to carry men to South Carolina 
and bring back aa many slaves as possible.' In 1723 an 
import duty'" was laid on negroes and slaves, but this was 
repealed by proclamation on October twenty-seventh of the 
following year in obedience to a decision of the English Privy 
Council. The Calender of State Papers of Virginia contains 
a copy of this proclamation. It was issued on the report of 
the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations that the English 
Slave Trade from which the Crown received a large revenue 
was greatly injured by the imposition of the import duty. 
The jiroclamation" was as follows : 

' Hennlnp, 8laluU», Vol. III., Chap, v, p. 213. 

'Ibid, p. 225. 

'Ibid, Cliii|. I, p. 233. 

♦ n.ld, p. 344. 

•Ibi.l. Chap, xll, S 11. p. 401. 
« ('.aleii'ler of Stale I'apor-*, Vol. I., p. 111. 
J iloniiiiiK. St«luto8, Vol. III.. Chnp. v. p. 490. 
» Ibid, Vol. IV., Chnp. Iv and v; pp. 28, 29. 

• Caloiider of Slalo I'apors. Vol. I., p. 1H2. 

'" Hotiiilnt,'. SUtijtes, Vol. IV., Chnp. 1, p. 118. 
" Culuuder of Htato I'aperH, Vol. I., p. 200. 



16 

" At tlie Council Cbamber, 

White hall, the 17 day of April, 1724. 
Present. BY a Committee of the Lords of 

Lord President His Majesty's Most Houorable 

Eakl of Westmoreland, Privy Council. In obedience 

Lord Viscount Townshand, to an order in council of the 
Lord Bishop of London, 21 February last, referring to 

Lord Carteret, the Committee a representation 

Mr. Walpoee, of the Lord's Commissioners 

Master of the Rolls. of Trade and Plantations re- 

lating to Your Majesty's dis- 
allowance of an act Passed in the Colony of Virginia in 1723, 
entituled ' An Act for Laying a Duty on Liquors and Slaves.' 
Their Lordships this day took the same into consideration 
and do find that three acts of the like kind were formerly 
passed in that colony laying a duty of £5 per head on all 
negroes imported there, which duty continued from the years 
1710 to 1718, aud though no considerable objections were 
made at that time to the said acts, yet it appeared that 
at the price the negroes there have and by the smallness of 
the number that were imported in those years in proportion to 
what have been imported siuce those acts expired, and the 
numbers that are necessarily wanted annually in the colony, 
this duty must have been of great hindrance to the negro trade, 
as well as a burden on the Poor Planters. Aud although the 
duty laid by this act was much less than the former, the same 
must be attended with ill consequences at this time, and dis- 
courage the planting and cultivating naval stores, especially in 
the two new counties where great numbers of negroes will be 
wanting, and where Your Majesty has been pleased to remit 
the payment of any quit rent for seven years, to encourage 
the settling and planting the same. 

And it further appears that this act lays the duty on the 
importer, whereby the trade of Great Britain will be aflected, 
and there is no clause inserted therein, pursuant to Your 
Majesty's instructions, to suspend its taking effect till Your 
Majesty's pleasure shall be known, for which reasons, and 
that there does not appear any immediate occasion for the 
said supplies and that no damage can arise from repealing the 



17 

siiiil act, since the Assembly may have time to pass another 
law to raise the necessary supplios for which the act was des- 
igned, nor liable to the said objections. Their Lordships do 
agree humbly to ufl'er their opinion to Your Majesty that the 
said act ought to bo repealed and made null and void. And in 
regard to the Governor of the said Colony hath acted contrary 
to Your Majesty's instructions by not inserting a clause to pre- 
vent its taking effect till Your Majesty's i)leasure should be 
known thereupon. Their Lordships arc further of the opinion 
that Your Majesty's pleasure should be signified to him that 
he do not on any pretence whatsoever presume to give his 
consent to any act of this kind for the future without inserting 
such a clause as is before mentioned." 

It is fully apparent from this decision of the Privy Council, 
that the good of the Colony was, if ct)nsidered at all, of very 
secondary importance. It was the purpose and desire of the 
English Government to crush out the manufactures that might 
grow up as being in hurtful competition with the mother 
country, to promote at all hazards, the cultivation of " naval 
stores," that is, resin, pitch, etc., which could of course be 
more cheaply obtained in the Colonies than elsewhere ; and 
further, as has been before stated, to encourage the slave trade 
of the English companies. Two fundamental laws of the Free 
Trade doctrine which, while for a time at least they may 
have worked to the advantage of the mother country, in no 
way iunured to the benefit of the Colonies individually or 
collectively. 

The first chapter' of the Act of 1727 was an Act for laying 
a duty on imported slaves ; but, mindful of the rebuke received 
the pn.'cediug year from White hall, it was muzzled by a sus- 
pending clause. It failed of confirmation by the King. In 
1732 an Act^ was again passed laying a duty on slaves, a duty 
laid on liquors having been entirely insulHcieut to the ])ublic 
needs. It enacted that all slaves imported for sale, either by 
laud or sea, or from whatsoever port, were to be taxed five per 
cent on the price at which they were sold in the Colony, the 
duty being paid by the buyer within forty days after the pur- 

> Hennlog, Sututes. Vol. IV., p. 182. 
>Ibld, p. 317. 



18 

chase ; the tax was varied in amount according as the sale 
was made in sterling or in " a commodity." If in sterling 
there was to be paid to the collector, over and above the regu- 
lar duty of five per cent., " for the difference in money, after 
the rate of twenty pounds per cent, upon the amount of the 
purchase in sterling money." If the slave was paid for in " a 
commodity," the owner was required to value the slave in 
money and pay five per cent, on the valuation. Where the 
buyer was a non-resident the vendor was held accountable for 
the duty. Slaves born in the Colony or imported before the 
passage of this act were not subject to the tax, and if a bona 
fide purchaser, for his own use, of a slave on whom the duty 
had been paid, wished permanently to withdraw that slave 
from the Colony within a year after the purchase, he might 
receive back the duty paid, but because of the custom of 
smuggling slaves from North Carolina and of the ease with 
which it could be done, he was required to take oath that he 
did not intend to carry him into that Colony. If the purchaser 
of the slave had imported money into the Colony, under the 
law to encourage such importations, he was, on producing a 
certificate of the fact, to receive a rebate of fifteen per cent, of 
the dxitj on slaves. The vendor of imported slaves was re- 
quired to keep a roll of the sales and deliver it to the collector 
within three months. There is a report in " Jefferson's Vir- 
ginia Eeports "' of a case under this Act against one Moore for 
not having transmitted to the collector of the duties a list of 
the slaves sold. Two years afterwards, in 1743, this Act was 
continued for four years.^ The law of 1732, laying a duty on 
slaves to be paid by the buyer, gave rise to so many and so 
great frauds on the customs that it was considered necessary 
to amend it. This was done by chapter one of the Act of 1736.^ 
By this Act the buyer of any slaves imported by land or sea 
was required to pay, or secure to be paid, the duty within 
forty days after the purchase. In case the slave should die 
within forty days after the payment of the duty, the amount 
might be recovered in full by the owner. Importers were re- 
quired to keep a full list of the number of their slaves, to 

1 Rex. V. Moore, p. 8; anno 1733. 

2 Henning, Statutes, Vol. IV , Chap, iii, p. 394. 

3 Ibid, p. 469. 



19 

whom sold and for wliat price, ami to dolivor tlio same to the col- 
lector withiu two months after tho arrival of said slavos iu the 
Colony. If auy slaves remained unsold at that time a similar list 
was to be made out twenty days after tlio last slave was sold. 
It liad been the custom of importers under tho former acts to 
hire out certain of their slaves, thus savin^^ the purchase duty 
on the plea of their being for their own use. By this Act tliat 
practice was forbidden. I3y chapter six of the Act of 17:i8' 
this Act was further amended. Tliis amended Act required tho 
vendor himself to receive the duty as collector, but it further 
provided th.it if tho vendor should ha])pen not to be a resident 
of the district tho tax was to be paid to the Naval Officer. Dur- 
ing the war with Spain iu 1740^ it was found necessary further 
to increase the duties five per cent, of the purchase money, over 
and above all other duties, in order to raise funds for carrying 
on the war. Finally, the last law on this subject before the Re- 
vision, was in 17-15. It extended the Act laying a duty on 
imported slaves to be paid by the buyer, until the year 1751.' 
(B) 1748-1775. The first law to be passed, on revisal in 
this period, was an Act repealing the " Act to Prevent Fraud 
on the Customs," which had been enacted in 1705 during the 
reign of Queen Anne.* Soon afterwards the Act first passed in 
1732, during the reign of George II, was revived." This Act 
imposed a tax of five pounds per cent, to be levied on the pur- 
chase price of each slave imported for sale, either by land or 
water and from any place whatsoever. In order to make the 
collection of the tax from the buyer as easy of accomplishment 
as possible, the importer was required to make up and deliver 
to the Colonial Treasurer a statement of sale, containing the 
name and address of the purchaser, the price paid for tho 
slave, and whether paid in currency or pounds sterling, in tho 
latter ca.se the duty being levied at the rate of twenty-five per 
cent. When the purchaser was an inhabitant of tho district the 
Treasurer was to give his name and address with a statement 
of the amount due, to the Sheriflf, who was requi red to collect 

> HotmInK, Stotutee, Vol. V., p. 28. 

MMrl, Chap. II. p. 92. 

' Ibid, i> 31S 

♦ Iblil. Vol. VI.. Chap, ixxvl, 1728. p. ?4. 

» Ibid, Chap. 1, 1752, p. 293. 



20 

it and pay it over to the Treasurer. The purchaser might, 
if more convenient to himself, pay the duty to the importer, 
who was held accountable to the Treasurer, as in the case of a 
non-resident purchaser. The importer was also required to 
make a return of all the privileged slaves on his ship.^ In 
case the purchaser should not be an inhabitant of the district, 
it was provided that he should pay the duty to the vendor, 
who was required to make the return to- the Treasurer under 
penalty of one thousand pounds. The duty was not to be paid 
on any slave who died within forty days after the sale, and if 
exported within twelve months thereafter the tax was to be 
refunded. This import was laid to pay off the public debt. The 
Act was extended to the year 1760 by the law of 1753,^ and it 
was still further extended in 1759^ and 1766,^ and by the law of 
1769, chapter seven,'' this duty was laid on all slaves imported. 
The following chapter'' of the same law laid a further duty of 
ten per cent, on all imported slaves over and above all former 
duties. 

In the November session of 1759 it was provided^ that all 
persons bringing slaves into the colony, from the neighboring 
Colonies of Maryland or North Carolina, or from the West 
Indies, should be obliged to pay twenty per cent, duty on the 
bona fide purchase price of the slaves in the Colony in which 
they were bought. This act was called forth by frauds 
which were continually being perpetrated on the customs by 
slave-dealers and others, who, in order to avoid the heavy 
duties, were accustomed to import their slaves first into one of 
those Colonies, or to buj' there those who were already imported 
and then bring them iiito Virginia. This Act did not apply to 
travellers who did not sell or barter their slaves. This Act 
was extended by chapter four of the law of 1766.** Both the 
Acts laying duties on slaves to be paid by the buyer, and on 
slaves imported from Maryland, North Carolina or the West 

1 1. e.. Slaves imported for the personal use of the importer, and which 
were free of duty. 

2 Heuniiig, Statutes, Vol. VI., Chap, iv, p, 353. 

3 Ibid, Vol. VII.. Chap. xi. p. 281. 
<Ibid, Vol. VIII., Chap, iii, p. 190. 

5 Ibid, p. 336. 

6 Ibid, p. 337. 

7 Ibid, Vol. XII., Chap, ii, p. 338, 

8 Ibid, Vol. VIII., p. 149. 



21 

Imlies, were coiitiiiuod auil amcucletl by the Act of 1772, clmp- 
ter liftoeii.' Tlio sumo Act revived so imicli of the Act of 1754, 
chiipter oue us iin[)osod five jxt cent, additioiiivl duty ou shwcs 
for the encoiira};eraent of settlors ou the waters of the Missis- 
sippi. Tlio duty of twenty-fivo per cent, ad valorem on slaves im- 
ported from Maryland, North Carolina and the West Indies was 
chani^ed to a iluty of five pounds j)er head. It was found that 
great frauds had been committed on the customs by importers 
of slaves, either by not enterinj^ them with the proper ofHcors, 
by which the colony was entirely deprived of the lawful dut}', 
or by making sham sales, where, for example, the slave was 
exposed at jiublic auction and bought in for the owner, who 
was thus enabled to assess the duty on a great undervaluation, 
and then dispose of the slave afterwards at a bona fide sale 
for his real value, thus depriving the Colony of a large part 
of the revenue from this source ; therefore it was further 
enacted that the owner or importer of any slaves from any 
country whatsoever should, within the time prescribed by the 
Act of 25 Geo. II " reviving the dut}" ou slaves to be paid by 
the buyer," deliver the list of such slaves to the Clerk of the 
County, or to the Naval Officer, under penalty of £25 for each 
slave. This list to bo transmitted to the Treasurer of the 
Colony under penalty of .£10. 

The Colony had established settlements upon the Missis- 
sippi, and the Assembly in 1754 passed an Act" for the 
encouragement and protection of settlements. A fund of ten 
thonsand pounds was raised for their support by a loan which 
was guaranteed by this bill, and a duty of five per ceut over 
and above all other duties was laid on imported slaves to secure 
it. This Act was to continue in eflfect until the fourteenth of 
February 1765, but in 1763' it was further extended for five 
years. It was again re-enacted in so far as it related to 
the duty to be collected for the contingent expenses of 
Government.* Chapter two of the Act of 1755^ was in expla- 
nation of an act to raise twentj- thousand pounds to defend 

I HonnlnR, Statutes, Vol. VIII., p. 530. 

Mbl.l. Vol. VI .Chnp. I. p 417. 

sil.iil, Vol VII . Chnp. I. p. r,39. 

♦27 0«>r««> II; 10 r,.-orK.< III. 

> Heiining, Stututet<, Vol. VI., p. 4G1, May Session. 



22 

the Colony against tlie French. The sum was to be raised by 
a tax of ten per cent, laid, over and above all other taxes; on 
the sale of imported negroes. But being found too burdensome 
to the purchasers it was repealed by chapter one of the Act 
of 1760.' 

The masters of vessels importing slaves into the Colony 
had been accustomed to throw over board all persons who 
died on their vessels, even when in port, to the great annoyance 
of the surrounding inhabitants. It was therefore required" 
by law that whenever any person, either negro or white, died 
on board a ship within the jurisdiction of the Colony, the 
master should have the body carried on shore and decently 
buried above high water mark in a grave at least four feet 
deep. It was found necessary to araend this Act in 1761,' by 
attaching a penalty of fifty pounds for every violation of it. 
Small pox and gaol fever were frequently spread among the 
colonists by imported convicts, servants and slaves, and had 
proved almost as fatal as the plague, which had visited the 
Colony in the first years of the reign of George I, and against 
which quarantine had to be established.* To pi-eveiit the 
transmission of these diseases vessels having cases of them on 
board were required to be quarantined. Masters of vessels 
were forbidden to land convicts, servants and slaves, until 
after they had entered at the naval office, and the master, mate 
or boatswain of each and every ship had taken oath th:d there 
was no such disease on board. Fifty pounds penalty was 
imposed for any violation of this act. 

§ 2. Laws Detebmining the Civil Condition of Imported 
Negroes. 

(A) 1620-1748. At first there were no laws to determine 
who might or who might not be enslaved. Probably all 
negroes who were brought into the Colony to be sold, were 
taken, and no questions asked. It is also probable that some 
of these were, by reason of their condition, or place of 
residence, or both, separated by the prevailing sentiment from 

1 HeiiniiiR, Statutes, Vol. VII., p. 357, May Session. 

2 Ibid, Vol. VI., Chap, xx.xvi, 1748, p. 94. 

3 Ibid, Vol. VIII., Chap, vi, p. 392. 
* 8 George I . 



'23 

the generalitj' of negroes, who were, with ninny of otlier rnces 
anil colors, considered the legitimate prey of the slavetrader. 
DonbtUss many christian and Uvo noj^rot^s were carried away, 
and sold by shive dealers, as we know many white people were 
in other conntries. At any rate this was the case later, as we 
shall see from the laws passed to prohibit such vilhiinies, which 
were to the etlect that any one selling a free person into shivery 
should, on such person recovering his liberty, forfeit double the 
price to the purchaser.' The laws also delined the conditions 
under which persons might legitimately be enslaved. There had 
si)ruug up about this time among christian people a decided 
animus against enslaving christians, as derogating from the 
dignity of the christian religion. And judging from some of 
the early English decisions on the subject, and from eminent 
writers on legal matters, the fact of the individual being a 
christian or a heathen would alone seem to have determined 
the right to enslave. The bond of a common religion was 
powerful to curb the rapacity of otherwise hostile notions, 
when that of blood was as a rope of sand. 

In 1670 the status of all imported servants was fixed by 
cha])ter twelve of the Act of that year.- It provided that all 
servants not christians, imported in ships, were to be sold as 
slaves, all others, that is those who were christians before 
importation, or who were imported by land, were to be inden- 
tured for a term of years. All negroes and raulattoes who 
had been christians before their importation became free 
indentured servants even if they had been slaves before, and 
the same was the case if they had been heathen slaves and 
had been imported by land. Therefore the Act of 1682^ 
was passed declaring those also to be slaves. The forty-ninth 
chapter of the Act of 1705' was the next on this subject ; it was 
an amendment of the preceding Act. It provided that all 
persons imported b}* sea or laml, not christians in their own 
country, excejit Moors and Turks in amity with England, or 
who had not been free in any christian country before their 
importation, shouhl be slaves. It further provided, to guard 

> Henning. 8tatuU», Vol. III., Chap, xllx, 1705, p. 447. 
»Il.l<l. Vol. II ,p. 283. 

> IblJ. Chop III, p 2«3. 
«IbUI, Vol. III., p 447. 



24 

against the fraud and miscliief that would arise from selling 
free persons as slaves, that any one guilty of such an act 
should be liable to the jiurchaser for double the price, on 
the recovery of his liberty by the person sold — a law 
excedingly beneficial to the purchaser in such a case ; the only 
objection to it would seem to be that it did not go far enough. 
It seems rather to leave the inference that the other victim of 
the trader's laudable attempt to increase his income would 
have to content himself, for a recompense, with his liberty — if 
he got it. In the case of Robin et al, against Hardaway et al,' 
a concise summary of the laws applying to the Indians is given 
by Colonel Bland, counsel for the defense. As some of the 
laws apply also to the negroes, and both negro and Indian 
were regarded in the same light, and legislated against in the 
same manner, it will also give a good idea of the laws respect- 
ing the status of the negro in Virginia. Colonel Bland said 
in the course of his argument that " indeed a set of negroes 
after the year 1G79^ who liaviug been brought in by laud, 
were, under the law of that year, but temporary servants, and 
these are the subject of one of the main branches of the 
Act of 1682 ; so that when the Act of 1684*' repealed that of 
1679' it took (away) one of the many foundations of 1G82. There 
still remained subject to its operation ; Jirst, the iudiaus taken 
in war before the year 1670, and held by their captors in 
slavery under the law of nature; second, negroes brought in 
and sold as slaves before that time, then Indians and negroes 
brought in by land after 1670 and under that Act held in 
temporary servitude, on all these the Act of 1682 continued to 
operate, so that in fact none were withdrawn from its power 
but the few described in the Act of 1679," to wit, those who 
might hereafter be taken in war by our own soldiers whenever 
we should have soldiers." The Act of 1682 the court held to 
be repealed by the act of 1705 chapter forty-nine.* 

1 Jefferson's Hepnrts, 109 (argued, 1772). 

2 Jefferson's Reports, 109. 

''An act for defense of the Colony against the Indians It enacted tliat 
Indian prisoners of war should l)0 free purchase to tlie soldiers taking them. 
— (Counsel's Argument) Jeff. Reports, 111. 

y " An Act for the Better Defense of the Colonies." It ex|)ressl.v repeals 
the Acts of 167fi, 1680, 1(;82, C. 7; and provides other troops to protect the 
frontier and reenacls nothing derogatory of the rights of freedom. — (Counsel's 
Argument) Jeff. Reports, 11'2. 




Another quostiou roquirinj;; legislative enactment was ah to 
the condition to which BhouKl be assigned children, one of 
whose parents was l)i)uiul either as a servant or a slave. A 
law was passed in l(i(!'2,' deolarinf; that tlie chilil should follow 
the condition of the mother ; this was the old civil law rule 
" partus stujuitur ventroni," which was oiitiroly contrary to that 
of the common law by which the child, if legitimate, followed 
the condition of the father. This law was re-enacted in Ki'.IG^ 
and again in 170.'>, cliapter forty-nine' Tn 170;">, the legislature 
defined mulattuos as tlie half-breod chililrou of an Indian, and 
also declared the children and gi-andchildron of a negro and a 
white to 1)e mulattoos.' A white woman having a bastard by a 
negro was, by the Act of KVJl, chapter sixteen,' to bo condemned 
to pay a fine of fifteen pounds or bo sold for five years, the child 
to be apprenticed to the church wardens until its thirtieth year. 
By the Act of 170.J," chapter forty-nine, it was enacted that 
if any woman servant had a bastard by a negro, she was, on the 
expiration of her 8er\'ico, to pay to the parish ten pounds or 
be sold for five years. If the guilty party was a free white 
woman the penalty was the same, while in either case, the 
child was to bo indentured to the church wardens until its 
thirtii-th year. By chapter four of tin; Act of 172;},^ tlie diild- 
ren of Indian and mulatto women bound to service until tlieir 
thirtieth year, were obliged to serve the masters of the mothers 
the same length of time as had the mothers. These latter 
laws were in many ca.ses especially severe, visiting not only the 
sins but the misfortunes of the parents upon the children, to 
the third and fourth generation, for it might hapjion, and 
often did ha])pen, that by reason of this law men and 
women were held in servitude as a punishment for the act of 
their great grand-parents, or because their ancestors to a more 
or less remote generation had each and every one been servants 
under this law at the time of the birth of their children. 

(B) 1748-1775. The old civil law rule that children should 

I Hoiinliis, statute". Vol. II., Clmp. xll, p. 170. 

1 1bid. Vol. III.. Chap. 1, p. 140. 

sibl.l. p 417, 830. 

« Iblil. Chap. Iv, p. 250. 

»lt)|cl. p. W,. 

• Ibl.l. p. 417. 

7 Ibid. Vol IV., p. 12G. 



26 

follow the condition of the mother was continued by the haw 
of 1748,' which also declared that all persons imported into the 
Colony by land or sea, who were not Christians in their own 
country or free in some Christian country before their impor- 
tation, except Turks and Moors, should be slaves. These pro- 
visions were enacted again in the law of 1753, chapter 
four,^ which also provided that the child of an Indian or 
mulatto woman bound to serve until her thirtieth year, should 
be requii'ed to serve the same length of time as its mother. 
Any woman servant having a bastard by a negi-o or mulatto 
was required to serve her master a year longer, and at the ex- 
piration of her service to pay the parish fifteen jiounds in cur- 
rency, or be sold for five years. If a free white woman should 
have such a bastard, within one month after her delivery, she 
also was required to pay a fine of fifteen pounds currency to 
the parish or be sold for five years. In both cases the child 
was to be bound to the church wardens until its thirty-first 
year. 

Masters were required to provide their indentured servants 
with proper food, clothing and lodging, and were forbidden to 
correct them immoderately, or to whip a Christian white servant 
naked without an order from a Justice of the Peace, under 
penalty of fifty shillings damages and costs, to be paid to the 
said servant.^ 

§ 3. Laws Rklating to Slaves as Property. 

(A) 1620-1748. Many of the laws already mentioned applied 
to slaves as well as to others. Most of the laws relating to the 
importation of negi'oes were applicable to slaves only. As all 
negi'oes were not slaves, so all slaves were not negroes, some 
were Indians, and whether they were or not, it is fully appar- 
ent that all others who were not Christians, even though white, 
might legally be reduced to slavery, with the two statutory ex- 
ceptions of Turks and Moors, because their governments were 
in amity with England. And it is conceivable indeed, that for a 
time, at least, even Christians might be reduced to practical 
slavei-y. The majority of the indentured servants were bound 

• Helming, Statutes, Vol. V., Chap. liv, p. 547. 

2 Ibid. Vol. VI., p. 356. 

3 Ibid. 



L 



27 

for a term of years only, more or less long according to cir- 

cnmstauecs, but some wore bound for life and those were to 

all intents and purposes as much slaves as the negroes, the 

only difleronce being that at first their children were free. 

Then came the law of 1G62, declaring that all children should 

follow the condition of the mother. This Act would reduce the 

children of female indentured servants to the condition of bond 

servants, and presumably, there being no law to the contrary, 

for the same period of service, that is, in some cases, for life, 

thus completing the analogy between them and slaves so-called 

in law. 

When first imported, negroes had been held as personal 

property as a matter of course, no laws having been enacted on 

the subject. In 170;")' this was all changed and they were with 

certain exceptions declared to bo real estate. The exceptions 

were as follows : 1. When they were brought into tho country 

by a merchant or factor and remained unsold, they were liable 

as personalty for the paj'ment of debts; 2, when their owner died 

without heirs; 3, they wore excepted from the rule requiring the 

recording of tlie transfer of real propertj'; 4, their ownership did 

not confer the voting franchise as did the possession of real 

estate ; and, 5. they could bo sued for in trover, detinue, or 

conversion. If necessary a wiit of dower or of " se partitiono 

facieuda " might issue, and the children of one dying intestate 

were to receive the value of the slaves after the deduction 

of dower. A widow sending dower slaves out of the country 

forfeited them to the reversioner. There had been a good deal 

of trouble with respect to the disposal of slaves belonging to 

an intestate estate. An 'attempt was made to remedy this 

in 1671,- but not very successfully. Tho administrators had 

previously been empowered to turn tho slaves themselves 

over to the heirs or to sell them under a valuation and pay 

over the money ; by this Act the discretion was vested in tho 

Court. In 1710^ a recommendation that the law declaring 

negroes real estate be repealed, was rejected by the committee 

of the House of Burgesses, and in the following year,' it was 
— — — — t 

' Hennlng, Statutes, Vol. III.. Chap, xxill, p. 333. 

» Ibl<l. Vol. II., CImp. Iv. p. 288. 

' CaleiKlitr of Stnto Pnpore. p. H5, 

* Hennlng, Statutos, Vol. IV., Chap. Ill, p. 12. 



28 

enacted tliat the slaves of an intestate decedent should re- 
main on tlie laud until the twentj'-fifth of December next 
succeeding the death of the owner, to work the crops. They 
were then to be delivered to the heirs, and the executors or 
administrators were not responsible for any slave who died 
during that period. By the law declaring them real estate 
slaves had become subject to the law of entail.' 

The law making slaves real estate had thus far been 
found in the main very beneficial, but mischief had arisen 
from the varying constructions put upon it, therefore in order 
to rectify this, the Act of 1727, chapter eleven, was passed.^ 
This Act proceeded to tangle matters yet more than before. 
Slaves were to be sold, given and bequeathed, in like manner 
as chattels, and there could only be such a remainder over as 
could be created in any chattel at common law, except as 
otherwise especially provided. Slaves belonging to women 
vested, on marriage, in the husband absolutely. They might be 
bequeathed by the will and testament of an infant over eigh- 
teen ; they were to be forfeited only in cases such as those in 
which lands and tenaments might be forfeited ; thoy were not 
to be sold by executors or administrators to pay debts until 
the personal estate was exhaiisted. The slaves of an intestate 
mother were to be disposed of in the same way as those of an 
intestate father. Former judgments of the General Court or 
the County Court as to the title to slaves were not to be affect- 
ed by this Act, nor were remainders, limited before its passage. 
As it was considered of advantage to have slaves fixed to the 
land, they might be so fixed by last will and testament or by 
deed, and woiald then be subject to such like limitations, rever- 
sions and remainders, as real estate. But to prevent fraud on 
creditors such slaves might be seized for the satisfaction of the 
debts of the tenant in tail for the time being, the seizure to be 
good against him and all claiming under him. The slaves of 
the wife annexed to the land might not be taken so as to bar her 
right after her husband's death. All actions for dower or 
partition of slaves were to be brought in Chancery. Instead of 
suing the heir-at-law by the common law for the proportionate 

• Henning, Statutes, Vol. IV., Chap, iv and v, pp. 28 and 29. 
2 Ibid. p. 222. 



29 

value of slaves, minor cliiKlron worn to oxliiliit a bill in P(|uity 
ami tlio C(»uit was to inocet'd npoii tho bill aiul tliu answer, 
although the defeuilant were au infant A widow was allowed 
to ronouui'o the provisions of her husband's will and take dower 
instead. The u«>xt yoar an Act' was passed to save executors 
and adniiuistrators from loss by the sale of negroes taken iu 
execution, because of false appraisement by appraisers ap- 
ju)iuted by law. " Slaves and neat cattle " were to bo sold for 
debt only when the personal estate failed. If the owner of 
slaves died on or after the first of March of any year his slaves 
were to be continued on the estate until tho twenty-fifth day 
of December next following. In 1730 began the reports of 
cases in the Colonial Courts, the first two being for the 
possession of negroes on the ground of their being chatt^-ls.' 
In tho next case, argued in 1731, it was urged by counsel that 
" slaves notwithstanding tho law making them real estate, re- 
main in the hands of the executors by that Act as chattels and 
as s?uch do vest iu them, for payment of debts. So that in this 
case they are considered no otherwise than as horses or cattle, 
and there is no doubt that the increase of any living creatures 
after the death of the testator are looked upon as part of his 
estate and are liable to bo taken for his debts," anil the Court 
so decided.^ In 1738 slaves were declared not liable for debts 
less than ten pounds, piovided there were other sufficient goods, 
nor were they to be taken for fees or levies.* Not only did 
in-ivate ])ersons own slaves but the Colony and tho Church also. 
In ltJ'J2 a bill provided for the purchase of slaves by the Colony 
to work upon the house of the Governor," and in 1726 an Act 
was passed providing for the purchase of the glebe of Elizabeth 
liiver Parish, and for the sale of other glebes, the j)roceeds to 
be used to buy slaves to be fixed forever to the first named 
glebe, for tho benefit of the parson." 

(B) 1748-1775. The first law we find in the Revi.sed Statutes 
is an Act to prevent frauds on mortgagees by requiring slaves 
to l>e registered. A similar Act was passed in 1757.' Frauds 

I HciiiilnK. Statutes. Vol IV., Chap, vlll, p. 281. 

' JufferBoii's Reports, Va., pp. 1 nnii 2. 

> Tu> kor r. Sweoney, JofTers^on'H Uoports, p. 5. 

* HoniiliiK, Stntul.«, Vol V., Chap, ix, p. 36. 
» Ibid. Vol. III., Chap, xvlli, p. 'iHo. 

• Ibl.l. Vol. IV., Chap. xlx. p. HO. 
J Ibid. Vol. VII , Chap, vl, p. 118. 



30 

had frequently been perpetrated on creditors and purchasers 
through the practice of parents and children making secret 
gifts of slaves to each other, and to third parties. That Act 
declared all such gifts null and void unless made by will or 
other writing duly recorded, and all gifts made before the 
passage of this Act were required to be recorded within eight 
months. If the donor refused to make the deed, the donee, by 
proving the gift before a Court, which proceedings were to be 
duly recorded, should hold the slave as if conveyed by deed. 
This Act was further extended in the following year. 

The law of 1748 chapter two,' was one of great importance 
and was one of the ten which called forth the royal veto. It 
was a repeal of the law making slaves real estate and a declara- 
tion that they were thereafter to be considered as personal 
property, the former Act having given rise to great trouble and 
confusion ; this was not to go into effect until 1751. It, as has 
already been said, did not find favour at Whitehall, and Gover- 
nor Dinwiddie was ordered to repeal it, which he did by pro- 
clamation on the thirty-first of October 1751,^ at the same 
time with several other Acts, among which was " An Act Con- 
cerning Servants and Slaves."^ Against this repeal the 
Colonists made a strong protest, and sent an address' to the 
King setting forth as reasons for the enactment of the said 
laws, that slaves were in their nature personal and not real 
estate, and had remained so until the fourth year of Queen 
Anne, when the legislature declared them real property, with 
so many exceptions, however, that they still remained largely 
personal. Especially did the two laws respecting the entail 
of slaves beget the most dire confusion and give rise to innu- 
merable law suits. The first Act had declared that slaves 
annexed to an estate should pass as part of the freehold, 
while the second one declared that such slaves might be sold 
in execution for the debts of the tenant in tail, thus barring 
the entail. Further, as no genealogies were kept, it was so 
difficult to distinguish between slaves held in fee simple and 
those held in fee tail, as to tend to gi'eat embarrassment in 

1 Henning, Statutes, Vol. V., p. 432. 

2IbiiI. p. 567. 

3 Ibid. Chap, xiv, p. 547. 

* Ibid. Note, p. 432, tt seq. 



81 

basiucss, the owners being nnablo either to sell or to mort- 
giige their slaves ou ncconnt of the fear entortaiiieii on all 
sides that they might be outaileil. Slaves' could not be takeu 
on/i. fa. for less than ten pounds sterling or two thousnud 
pouuds of tobacco, provided there was other sufficient per- 
sonal ^property within the bailiwick of the oilicor, but a min- 
ister might distrain the slaves, goods and chattels of any 
parishioner who failed to jiay the parish rates.' Any person 
holding two or more tithable male labouring slaves was ex- 
empted from personal service ou the highways, but he had to 
send his slaves under penalty of five shillings for every slave 
absent' 

In Jefiersou's Reports we find a decision rendered in 1708 
to the efl'ect that slaves as well as lands might be conveyed to 
uses and were within the statute of uses,' also that a /cmj/ie 
sole, by her marriage, gave no right to the husband over any 
slaves not in possession ; but if, being entitled to anj' slaves 
not in her possession, she died before reducing them to pos- 
session, the right so to reduce them survived in the husband.' 
Slaves could not be entailed unless annexed to land," and there 
was no right of hotchpot in dividing the value of slaves." In 
Smith vs. Griffins"' it was held that slaves could not pass by a 
devise of personal estate. The case of Hamilton vs. Carr° is 
rather an interesting one. William Carr, by a will dated August 
second, 17G0, disposed of his estate, both real and personal, 
including slaves. After making the will he inherited other 
slaves from his uncle who died intestate. In settling up 
Carr's estate suit was brought to determine whether these 
latter slaves passed under the terms of the will, it not having 
been reformed or republished by the testator with respect to 
them. Pendleton for the defense argued that slaves, by stat- 
ute, were made real estate, which at common law was indivi- 
sable, but that they were also brought under the statute of 



' HonnlnR. Statutes, Vol. V., Chap, xll, p. 535. 

' Ibid. Vol. VI.. Clinp. xxxlv, 1718. p. 88. 

s Il)i<l. Chap, xxvlll, p. 64. 

< Curtis ot al., V. Fltzliugh, 72. 

» Bront r. I'ortor, 72. 

« Blackwoll I'. Wllkenson, 73. 

7 Alien ot ol., r. Allen et al.. 8C. 

8 p. 132. 
»p. 182. 



32 

wills, thus making them divisable. Wythe for the plaintiff 
held, on the otlier hand, that they were real estate, and had 
" not their testable quality from the statute of wills, but from 
their own nature," slaves being real property when the owner 
died intestate, but personal in every other instance. The case 
was decided on the groimd that the residuary clause was so 
peculiarly drawn as to exclude the slaves, leaving the points 
made by the counsel undetermined. 

By chapter twenty-three of the Act of 1705 slaves were 
declared to be real estate and became entailable. Almost 
immediately private statutes began to appear, generally for 
the purpose of breaking the entail of slaves and land, and 
"to set other lauds and slaves to the same uses"; sometimes 
to sell parts of entailed lands to buy slaves to fix to the 
remainder; sometimes for selling slaves to buy land upon 
which to fix other slaves. The first of these bills was chapter 
four of the Act of 1711 ; thereafter up to the period of the 
Revolution they appear in great numbers on the Statute-books. 
From an entry in the " Calendar of State Papers,"' it would 
seem as if the possession of real estate or slaves was a pre- 
requisite to eligibility to office. This entry is a statement of 
charges brought against Colonel Spotswood by Colonel John 
Thornton charging the former with malfeasance in office. One 
of the charges, the second, being that " the said Spotswood 
had likewise given a captain's commission to Aaron Bledsoe a 
person that had neither land nor slaves iu the county." 

§ 4. Runaways. 

(A.) 1620—1748. There had been a great deal of trouble 
experienced from the escaping of indentured servants, who 
had, for punishment, been made liable when recaptured, to a 
longer service. The slaves seem to have begun to follow the 
example of the indentured servants, and in 1660 an Act^ was 
passed declaring that English servants running away with 
negro slaves should serve not only for their own lost time, but 
also for that of the negroes. In 1670' a standing reward was 
offered for the apprehension and return of runaway servants 

1 Vol. I., p. 252. 

2 Henninfc, Statute.s, Vol. II., Chap, xxii, p. 2G. 

3 Ibid, Chap, i, p. 277. 



3:] 

and slftvos, tho foriucr statiito uot haviii}^ bcou very effec- 
tive. In IG'Jl' it Wiis ouuctoil that slaves niniiinj^ uway and 
lying out were to be approhonded by the Sheriff or any 
other person who nii^^ht coiuo upon thcni, and that if (hoy 
rosistod arrest or attoiuptcd to escai)e they uiij^ht bo killed, 
four thousand pounds of tobacco bein<^ paid to the master, by 
tho people, as compensation for tho loss of tho slave. In 
IfiO'i" it was ordered that slaves whose masters could not bo 
discovered should be turned over to the Sheriff of James City. 
In 1701, " an Acf of attainder " was passed against a negro 
who had been lying-out, stealing cro])s and doing other 
damage for several years ; a reward of a thousand jiounds of 
tobacco was offered for his apprehension or death, and it 
was declared a felony for anyone to harbour him. If ho 
was killed his master was to receive four thousand pounds 
of tobacco as a re-embursement. It having been found that 
slaves were escaping by way of the sea, it was forl)idden, 
under penalty of one hundred pounds sterling for each 
slave, to carry slaves clandestinely out of the Colony. Tho 
rigor of this will bo appreciated when it is stated that tho 
value of the best slave was uot above twenty-five ])ouuds 
sterling. By the forty-ninth chapter of the Act of 1705*, a re- 
ward of one hundred pounds of tobacco was offered for tho 
apprehension of a runaway slave taken within five miles 
of his home, and two hundred pounds if ten miles away, 
A runaway slave refusing or unable to give the name of his 
master was to be imprisoned until his master's appearance, 
and was to receive a number of lashes, not exceeding thirty- 
nine, on being apprehended and each day while awaiting the 
identification of his master. He was to be turned over to tho 
Sheriff, who was made responsible for him if ho permitted him 
to be hired out to work or allowed him to escape. Outlying 
slaves refusing to come in and give themselves up, after proper 
warning were outlawed and might be killed by anj'one. Any 
such slave when captured might be punished " by disnaember- 
ment or otherwise not teaching life or limb " as the Court saw 

' rionnlnK. Sututns, Vol. III., Chap, xvl, p. 8G. 
' ('tilpM'lnr of SInto Tapprs, p. 30. 
J UoniilnK, SUtulos, Vol. III., Chap. II, p. 210. 
*lbld. p. 447. 



34 

fit. Any slaves killed while escaping, or pnt to death as a pun- 
ishment, were to be paid for by the people. There is on the 
Statute-books an Act passed in 1722' entitled "An Act for 
Amending the Act Concerning Servants and Slaves ; and for the 
Better Government of Convicts Imported ; and for the Further 
Preventing the Clandestine Exportation of Persons Out of the 
Colony." The title only of this Act is extant. It was, however, 
repealed in 1723. Hy chapter four of the Act of 1723- it was 
provided that slaves being habitual runaways or habitually 
lying-out, should be punisliable by dismemberment or in any 
other manner not touching life, at the hands of their masters, 
and if while undergoing such punishment at their master's 
hands, or by an accidental blow given by him, they should bn 
killed, sxich killing was not to be considered as murder, and 
the owner was not to be piinished for it unless the killing 
was willful. Former laws having proved insufficient to check 
the running away of slaves further provision was made in 1726, 
chapter five.^ It was then enacted that runaway slaves who 
could not or would not give the names of their masters sliould 
be committed to the Count}' Gaol, and a full description of 
them be published at the Court House by the Sheriff and at 
the churches after service. If the slave was not claimed within 
two months thereafter he was to be lodged in the Pul)lic Gaol 
of the Colony by the Constables, who were to be responsible for 
any escape. The transportation fees were to be paid by the 
Colony. Slaves in the Public Gaol might bo hired out by the 
keeper in payment of their expenses. If the owner appeared 
the hirer was compelled to return the slave to the keeper, 
paying the proportionate hire, and the keeper, on receij^t of 
all expenses incurred over and above the amount of the hire, 
delivered the slave to his master. By putting a collar marked 
" P. G." around the neck of the runaway the keeper was 
enabled to relieve himself of all responsibility. If the owner 
was a citizen of Maryland or North Carolina, he was charge- 
able with the fees demanded in the province in whicli he 
resided. Slaves known to have run away from Maryland or 
North Carolina were at once lodged in the Public Gaol, and 

1 Heniiinjz, Statutes, Vol. IV., Chap, v, p. lOG. 

2 Ibid. p. 126. 
sibld. p. 168. 



35 

tho Sheriff sent ft full doscription to ii properly dosiRnated 
jiliico ill the proviiico from whirh tho slave had oscaiiod. If such 
a slavo was hirod out no comuiituiout foo was to bo charf^od. If 
no owuor could be found the Gaol foos were to bo ])aid by tlie 
public. To jircvcnt tho chmdostino transportation of slavoa 
out of tho Colony masters of vessels wore oblij^od to take oath 
that they would not carry out of tho Colony people who wore 
without passes. 

In 1U.S0, by chapter ten,' it was made unlawful for noj^'oes 
to leave their nmstor's plantation without a certificate. A 
breach of this law was punishable with twenty lashe.s. This, 
not provinr; eflicient, was amended in 1(>82, b}' chapter three* of 
tho Act of that year, which declared that any person allowing 
another's slaves to remain on his i>lantatiou for more than 
four consecutive hours without tho consent of tho master or 
overseer of such slave, should, upon conviction l)y two wit- 
nes.se8, be fined at lea.st two hundred pounds of tobacco 
for each offense. This latter law was ro-enacted in the Act 
of 1705, chapter forty-nine.^ By clnipter four of the Act of 
1723' it wjis enacted that any masters or overseers who 
allowed slaves not tlieir own, above the number of five, to 
remain on their plantatifju at any one time, should forfeit 
five shillings or fifty pounds of tobacco for each slave. 
Every slave coming on tho plantation of one other than his 
owner, without the permission of such person or of his owner, 
should receive ten la-shes. Any damage done by slaves living 
at quarters where there was no over.seer was to be paid for by 
the owner." This also was re-enacted by tho comprehensive 
Statute of 1705, chaptT forty-nine." Among tho laws of 1723 
there is the title of " An Act for the Transportation of Dick 
and other Nogro Slaves."' Tho Act itself is not extant and no 
explanation of it can be found. 

(B.) 17-18—1775. The laws enacted during this period 
respecting ontljnng and runaway slaves were very similar to 

I HennlnB, .St.itutos, Vol. II.. p. 481. 

'11.1(1. p. I'J-J. 

J Ibid. Vol. Ill , p. UT. 

t Ibl.1. Vol. IV.. p. 12B. 

» Ibid. Vol. III., Chap. Ill, 1692, p. 102. 

•Ibid, p 447. 

7 Ibid. Vol. IV., Chap, vll, p. 185. 



36 

those of the preceding period. For the apprehension of a 
runaway slave above ten miles from home two hundred pounds 
of tobacco were offered, and one hundred pounds of tobacco if 
between ten and five miles away. The reward was to be paid 
by the town wherein the " takei--up " resided. The runaway 
was then taken before a Justice of the Peace, who sentenced 
him to receive a number of lashes not exceeding thirty-nine, 
and then returned him home. If the runaway could not or 
■would not declare the name of his owner or master he was 
lodged in gaol, and a full description of him was posted at the 
Court House and read at the church door every Sunday for 
two months. If within that time the owner did not appear, the 
runaway was carried to the Public Gaol, and a full description 
of him was published in the Virginia Gazette for thi-ee months. 
With the consent of the Court he might be hired out until his 
master appeared, for the purpose of paying his transportation 
and gaol expenses. Any person claiming him while in the 
Public Gaol was required to prove his ownership in the County 
Court of the county in which he resided. If the owner failed 
to appear within a reasonable time the slave was sold at pub- 
lic auction. Eunaways escaping across the (Chesapeake?) 
bay were turned over to the Sheriff, and not as in the former 
cases to the Constable, and runaways from the neighbouring 
Colonies of Maryland and North Carolina were disposed of in 
the same way.' Sometimes slaves were carried off on ocean- 
going vessels. To prevent this, owners of vessels carrying them 
off without the consent of their master, were to forfeit =£100 for 
every slave so carried off.- They were also required to take oath 
that they would carry no one off unless furnished with a pass- 
port. Slaves who had become habitual runaways were pun- 
ished by " dismemberment or otherwise not touching life," 
audit they died as a consequence of the punishment no penalty 
was incurred, except that the owner of a slave dying as a 
result of the negligence of a surgeon or killed by any other 
person might recover full damages.^ In 1753 the provisions 
respecting runaways who failed to disclose the names of their 

' Henning. Statutes, Vol. V., Chap, xiv, 1748, p. 517. 

2 Ibid. Vol. VI., Chap, xxii, 1748, p. 44 

3 Ibid. Chap, xxxviii, p. 104. 



87 



owners, ami ruimways from Miirylmul iiiul North Ciirolina wore 
re-oimcteiL' On rooeiviiii^Miiforiiuitiou us to slaves ij'iiig-out niid 
stealing; ami jiorpotratin}; otlier uiischief, two Justices i)f tho 
Quonuii of the County where such slaves were supposed to lurk 
were empowered U> issue a proclamation reiiuirinf» them to 
surrender and orderiu|^ tho 81ierifl" to make search for them. 
The proclamation was to be published at tho door of every 
church in tho county for two Sundays. Any slaves remainiiif^ 
out after the second publication might bo killed by anyone 
without impeachment of crime, and any slaves put to death in 
compliauci' with this Act wore to'l)e valued, and paid for by the 
public. If a slave was killed while under;,'oinf5 correction, or 
by an accident of any kind, the person killiug him was not to be 
held criminally responsible, and anyone imlicted for the mur- 
der of a slave and found guilty of manslaughter only was not 
to be punished in any mauner.- 

The method of takiiig-up and returning runaway servants 
and slaves under the first laws, having been found exceedingly 
inconvenient to owners and ofKcers and expensive to tho 
Colony, the law of 17G5, chapter twenty-tive,' provided that 
any slave taken-up who should give the name of his master 
should V)o carried before a Justice, and if on examination he 
proved to be a runaway tho taker-uji was retpiired to deliver 
him, or cause him to bo delivered, to his master from whom 
he should bo entitled to collect fifty shillings and mileage. 
SerN-ants and slaves not giving tho names of their masters 
were to be dealt with as before. The Act of 1748, chapter 
thirty-eight, so far as it related to outlying slaves, was con- 
tinued by the Act of 1772, chajiter nine,* which stated that 
slaves were to be outlawed only when tho Justice who issued 
the proclamation was convinced of their mischievous acts, 
and if a proclamation was issued contrary to this law and a 
slave was killed in consecjuenco the owner could not recover 
from the public. This last clause must have been exceedingly 
popular with the owners; 

I HennlnR, Stutiitos, Vol. VI., Cliop. vll, p. 350 
> 11.1(1. Clinp. xx.\vlll, 174«. p. 104. 
Mbia. Vol. VIII., p 135, 
Ubid. p 52 J. 




38 

§ 5. Laws Against Insurrection. 
(A.) 1620—17-18. Ill 1702 the Council took mecasures to pro. 
vide again.st that bugbear of slave owners, a servile insurrec- 
tion.' This appears to be the first of the laws of this character 
and was called forth by the dangers threatened during the war 
with France and Spain, in which the Colonies were largely 
concerned. In 1709 there is, in the " Calendar of State Papers," 
the mention of an investigation of a conspiracy of negro and 
Indian slaves to make their escape, by force if necessary. 
None of the negroes captured being leaders, only one of them 
was punished, receiving forty lashes," and one James Booth, a 
free negro, who knew of the conspiracy, but failed to disclose 
it, received twenty-nine lashes. Subsequently, in 1712, a negro 
named Scipio and an Indian named Salva were found guilty of 
treason for complicity in that conspiracy, and sentenced to 
death.'* In 1715' it was made a condition of peace with the 
" Cattabaws," Cherokees and other Indian tribes with whom 
the Colony had been at war, that they should deliver up Pom- 
pey, an Indian slave, and Pope, a negro slave, who had been 
active in support of the Indians. The laws already passed 
being found inadequate for the purpose of preventing insurrec- 
tions and secret plottings, it was enacted in 1723,-' chapter 
four, that any number of slaves above five, guilty of plotting 
to rebel or murder any person, should be considered felons and 
condemned to death "without benefit of clergj-." Masters 
or overseers might permit slaves to congregate at the quarters 
or other lawful places, and for public worship ; other meetings 
were forbidden. And any free person present at any such 
unlawful gatherings, or who harboured or entertained any 
slaves who attended such meetings, was to be fined fifteen shil- 
lings or one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco. Warrants 
for the arrest of all persons present at such meetings were to 
be issued within ten days, and a fine of fifty shillings was to 
be levied on any Sheriff who failed to attempt to disperse any 
such meetings. The value of any slave killed in the execution 

• Calendar of State Papers, Vol. I., p. 79. 
2 Ibid. pp. 129 and 130. 
^3 Ibid. p. 161. 
<Ibid. p. 182. 
» Heanlng, Statutes, Vol. IV., p. 126, 



39 

of this Act was to ho paid to liis nmstor. Chivj)tor fivo of tho 
Ac-t of 17'27' ompoworotl tlio County Lioutoiiaut, or uuy other 
officer fommautling the militia, todisporso unhvwfulgatlieriiiKS 
of shwos ami to arrest any shvves foiiiul tt)^,'otlier contrary to 
tho law of 1723. This law was extended by tho Act of 1732, 
chapter four,' for three years, and was again continued for 
three years luoro by tho Act of 1731, chajitor four.' By chap- 
tor two of tho Act of 1738' provision was made for jiatrollors. 
The militia was required to patrol all negro quarters and 
places where there might bo " unlawful a-ssemblages of slaves, 
servants or other disorderly persons;" to apprehen<l all 
slaves and servants strolling from one plantation to another, 
without the permission of their masters, and carry tliem before 
a Justice, who wjis to sentence thorn to not less than twenty 
lashes. By chapter threo"^ of this same Act tho law against 
insurrections was further extended for three years. Under the 
Statute of 1705, cha]>tor twenty-four," slaves were exempted 
from military duty. 

(B) 1748-1775. The new laws did not materially change 
the old. Masters and overseers were forbidden to allow anj' 
strange slave to remain on their plantations for more than four 
hours at a time without tho consent of the owner or overseer 
of such slave, under penalty of one hundred and fifty i)ouuds 
of tobacco for each violation of tho Act. If more than five 
straugo slaves were allowed to remain on the plantation at one 
time, fivo shillings or fifty pounds of tobacco was to be for- 
feited for each slave above that number. This did not prevent 
slaves of the same owner, though of dift'erent quarters, from 
meeting on the owner's plantation with tho owner's leave ; nor 
did it apply to the meeting of slaves at a mill on the business 
of their owners, provided it was not at night or on Sundays I 
nor to their meeting on any other lawful occasion with the 
consent of their owners given in writing, or to going to church 
on Sunday or an}- other day of j)ublic worship.' Tho owner 

> Honnlnj?. Statutes, Vol. IV., p. 197. 

> Ibl.l. p. 32.1. 
siblil p. 3'J5. 
Ublcl. Vol. v., p. IC. 
»Ibld p. 24. 

•Ibid. Vol. III., p. 333. 
Ibid. Vol. VI., Chap. xxxtIII, 17-18, p, 104. 



40 

of a plantation might pxinisli with ten lashes any strange 
slave coming on his plantation without permission. Slaves 
were forbidden to leave the place where they were appointed 
to live, withoi;t the consent of their owner or overseer. Any 
white man or free negro, mulatto or Indian, found in the com- 
pany of slaves at any unlawful meeting, or who harboured or 
entertained a slave without his owner's consent, forfeited fif- 
teen shillings or one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco to the 
informer, or received twenty lashes, while every slave present 
received any number of lashes not exceeding thirty-nine, at 
the discretion of the Judge. A Justice of the Peace or Sheriff 
who failed to snpi)ress any such meeting, forfeited fifty shil- 
lings or five hundred pounds of tobacco, and any Under- 
Sheriff or Constable so failing, forfeited two hundred pounds 
of tobacco, to the informer. The " Act for the better regu- 
lation of the militia " passed in 1754,' provided for a patrol, 
to be appointed every June by the chief of the militia, which 
was to consist of not more than four men, who were re- 
quired, at least once in every mouth, to visit all negro quar- 
ters and other ])laces suspected of entertaining unlawful 
assemblages of slaves or others. They were empowered to 
arrest all unlawfully assembled persons, and all slaves strolling 
from plantation to plantation without a pass, and carry them 
before a Justice of the Peace who should sentence them to not 
more than twenty lashes. This Act was continued by the Act 
of 1757, chapter three.' Negroes or other slaves, consulting, 
advising, or conspiring, to commit murder were to be adjudged 
guilty of a felony and were to be punished with death " without 
benefit of clergy."' 

^ § 6. PONISHMENTS FOR VARIOUS OFFENSES. 

(A) 1620-1748. It was in the Colony, as it was later 
in the State, a very heinous offense for a negro or a slave to 
assault a white man. Chapter ten of the Act of 1680' provided 
that if a slave lifted his hand against a Christian, meaning 
presumably a white man, he was to receive thirty lashes, that 

1 Henning, Statutes, Vol. VI., Chap, ii, p. 421. 

2 Ibid. Vol. VII., p. 93. 

3 Ibid. Vol. VI., Chap, xxxviii, 1748, p. 104. 
« Ibid. Vol. II., p. 481. 



41 

this dill not moan " C/iri.iliav," is made ovident from a section 
of tho Act of 1705' wliieli enacted that any negro or mulatto, 
whether /whh</ or free, who should prosuine to raiHO his hand 
against a Christian white person should bo punished with 
thirty lashes. 

There a|)poars to have been some doubt as to whether a 
master or overseer really had the right to kill one of his slaves. 
To set that matter at rest a law' was ]>assod, declaring that if 
a slave resisted his master, or one anthorizoil by his master, 
while undergoing punishment and was killed, the killing should 
not be a felony, and this was re-enaotcd liy chapter forty- 
nine of the Act of 1705.' The manslaughter of slaves was 
declared by tho Act of 1723, chapter four' not to bo punishable, 
except that tho owner might sue for damages. 

Pig stealing and the killing of deer by slaves wore severely 
dealt with. For the first oflfeuse of pig stealing tho offender was 
to receive thirty-nine lashes, for the second ho was to stand 
two hours in the pillory with his ears nailed thereto, and at 
the expiration of that time his ears were to be cut off next to 
tho nails.' This penalty was augmented" by a later Act requir- 
ing tho owner of tho offending slave to pay two hundred 
pounds of tobacco for each hog killed. For killing deer 
without tho knowledge of his master or his overseer a slave 
was to be punished with thirty lashes, this Act" was also 
amended by chapter fifty of the year of 1705."* Tho slave 
was to receive thirty lashes if he killed a deer of his own 
accord, if by the order of his master or other resjionsiblo 
person, such ]>erson was to be fined five hundre<l pounds of 
tobacco. This was again amended in 178-4' by an Act lessening 
the penalty as follows : Servants or slaves killing deer by 
order of their masters or overseers were not to be held respon- 
sible, but only the person ordering the killing, but if they did 
it on their own account they were to be punished with fifteen 

I HonnlnR, SUliiUw. Vol. Ill , Clmp. xllx, §31, p 147. 
JIbiil. Vol. II., p. 270, Act. I., KUVJ. 
Mbld. Vol III . p 1(7. 
< Ibl.l. Vol. IV., p. 12i;. 

» Ibl.l. Vol. in.,ciinp. vi, innn, p. nx 

• Ibid. Chnp. xlv, 170.1, p. 27r,. 
7 Ibid. Chap, vll, 1C99, p ISO. 
"Ibid, p ■ir,2. 
» Ibid. Vol. IV., Chap, xll, p. 425. 



42 

lashes, unless security was given tliat tlie fine imposed would 
be paid in six mouths. To prevent fraud on the customs it 
was enacted by the Act of 1730, chapter three,' that every ser- 
vant or slave employed on board a vessel who connived at any 
such fraud should, upon conviction, receive thirty-nine lashes. 

In 1680' negro slaves were forbidden to bear arms. This 
having been found insufficient, the law was amended in 1705 
by chapter forty-nine,^ so that any slave who bore arms 
without his master's permission was to receive thirty lashes. 
It was again amended in 1723' so that slaves found carrying 
arms were to be deprived of them and punished with not 
more than thirty-nine lashes. 

(B) 1748-1775. Negroes had begun to set themselves up as 
" doctors " and to practice on slaves ;iud others who were cred- 
ulous enough to employ them, thereby causing the death of 
many people by poison. To stop this practice it was made a 
felony without benefit of clergy for any " negro or other slave 
so to practice," unless it was made evident that the medicine 
was administered without malicious intent, in which case ben- 
efit of clergy was granted. When the medicine was admin- 
istered with the mastei''s consent this statute did not a]3])lj'.^ 

For stealing hogs," slaves were to receive thirty-nine lashes 
at the public whipping post; if the offense was repeated they 
were stood with both cars nailed to the pillory for two hours, 
and were then cut loose. The Act of 1705, chai)ter fouiteen, was 
repealed. The " Act for Preserving the Breed of Sheep"' for- 
bade any slave, in the counties mentioned in the Act, to take any 
dog with him from one plantation to another. If he did so, any 
one meeting him might kill the dog and, on complaint made 
before a Justice of the Peace, have the slave punished with 
twenty lashes. This did not apply to a slave taking dogs from 
place to place as before, by the master's orders for the master's 
diversion. Chapter five of the Act of 1755* imposed a punish- 

' HoMiiins, Statutes, Vol. IV., Chap, xii, p. 247, 

2 Ibid. Vol. II., Chnp. x, p. 481. 

■ilbid. Vol. III., p. 447. 

• Ibid. Vol. IV., Ciiap, iv, p. 12r,. 

5 Ibid. Vol. VI.,Cliap. xxxviii, p. 104. 

6 Ibid. Chap, xli, p. 121. 

7 Ibi.l. Chap, xlii, 1752, p. 295. 
sibid. p. 473. 



43 

incut of teu Insbes on any slave making a fire in a public 
wjirolionso. 

After the Revision, laws similar to those of the preceding 
poriod, respecting the right of nogro slaves to bear arms, wore 
enactvil. The Act of 1718, chapter thirty-eight, ileclaroil that 
all negroes, nuilattoes and Indians were forbidden to carry 
weapons, and any found in their possession were to be seized 
by any jierson and forfeited to the seizor, and every offender 
was to ruceive not inure than thirty-nine liishcs. But any 
persun living on the frontier was allowed weapons of offense 
and defense upon obtaining a liconso from a Justice of the 
Peace.' Any negro, mulatto, or Indian who presumed to raise 
Lis hand against a Christian white was to receive thuty lashes'^ 
as under the former law. 

The marriage of a free white man or woman with a mulatto 
or negro, whether bound or free was unlawful, and the white 
man or woman so offending was to be committed to goal for 
six months and be lined ten pounds currency, to be paid to the 
parish. And the minister performing such a marriage was to 
forfeit ten thousand pounds of tobacco.' 

§ 7. TUIALS OF SLA\'Ea. 

In the Calendar of State Papers there is an entry under date 
of 1072' wliicli would sei in to show that slaves had the benefit 
of the jury .system, as it mentions that six jurymen were sum- 
moned to try a slave for the murder of a fellow slave. This 
rather doubtful advantage was done away with by statute in 
1G92,'' when an Act was passed constituting a tribunal for the 
trial of slaves. It provided that any slave accused of a cajjital 
offense should be confined in the goal of the County where the 
offense wjia committed. The Sheriff was then to notify the 
Governor who thereupon was required to issue a "Commission 
of Oyer and Terminer " to try the accused without a jury, and 
if fouml guilty, to punish him according to law. This was 
amended by the Act of 1705, chapter eleven." This Act provided 

I HenniDK. Stntot«8, Vol. VI., p. 104. 

* Ibl<l. 8 20. 

» Ilild. Cunp. vll, 1753, p. .l.iC. 

< Vul. I . p. 8. 

» HonnliiK, Statutes, Vol., III., Chap. Ill, |> m.', 

• n.M. p 2r,'j. 



44 

that slaves guilty of capital offenses should be imprisoned, and 
publicly tried by the Commission of Oyer and Terminer, the 
defense to be confined to matters of fact and might be con- 
ducted by the owner. If the slave was condemned and 
executed his owner was to be indemnified. This was re-enacted 
by chapter four of the Act of 1723.' In these trials slaves were 
given the benefit of witnesses and there appears to have been 
some trouble taken to obtain them. There was a petition in 
1G91, that proclamation be made for evidence against a mulatto 
slave, " so that he be either discharged, or should such 
evidence appear, be prosecuted as ye law directs."" In 1705, 
negroes and mulattoes were made incapable of being witnesses 
in any case whatsoever.^ In the case of slaves tried for plotting 
insurrection or murder, negroes and slaves were competent 
witnesses according to the Act of 1723, chapter four,' and 
negroes, not Christians, guilty of perjiiry were to be punished 
by having one ear nailed to the pillory for an hour, and then 
cut off ; then the other ear to be treated in like manner, 
and, finally, by receiving thirty-nine lashes. This punishment 
was to be made known to all such witnesses by the Commis- 
sioners before the examination. By the Act of 1732, chapter 
seven,^ negroes, mulattoes and Indians, whether bound or free 
were declared to be so untrustworthy as witnesses that their 
testimony should not be received except on trials of slaves for 
capital offenses under the Statute of 1723, chapter four. In 
1718 there was a case of a negro slave who, for want of proper 
evidence,'' was transferred from North Carolina to Virginia to 
be tried for a murder committed in a Virginia coiinty." 

(B) 1748-1775. This period is distinguished for the growth 
of the feeling that slaves also were men and should be treated 
accordingly, the result of which was a softening of the severity 
of the law as regarded punishments. 

All slaves " guilty " of any crime punishable with "death 
or loss of member " were committed to the Common Gaol to 

1 Helming, Statutes. Vol. IV., p. 126 

2 Calendar of State Papers. Vol. I., p. 30. 

3 Henning, Statutes, Vol. III., Chap, xi.t, §31, p. 287. 
<Ibid. Vol. IV., p. 126. 

6 Ibid. p. 325. 

•> Pinbably for convenience of witnesses. 

^ Ciilfii.'nr of State Papers, 194. 



46 

nwuit triiil l)y " the Commission nf Oyer and Tcrminor." Tho 
oviilouco wiis to consist of " the confession of tlio ofTondcr, 
oiitli of t)no or nioio cieiliblo witnesses, or sncli testimony of 
negroes, muliittoos or Inilisms, bound or free, with i)roj{niint 
circumstancos as to tlicni shall seem conviiicin}; without the 
solemnity of a jn''y*" ^" order to convict, tho decision oi tho 
Judges was required to be unanimous, otherwise tho prisoner 
was to be acciuittod, and, excejit in time of insurrection, execu- 
tion was not to bo done until tho lai)so of ten days after i)ro- 
uouucing sentence. If tho accused was found guilty of an 
ofl'onso within benefit of clerf^y, sentence of death was not to 
bo jiassed, but he was to be punished by being burned on the 
hand by tho gaoler iu open Court, and was to receive such other 
corporal i)unishmont as tho Court might direct. If tho crime 
was manslaughler, house-breaking, at night or in the daytime, 
and taking j)roperty valued at twenty shillings, or if the person 
convicted had once hud the benefit of this Act,' ho was to be 
sentenced to death without benefit of clergy. This method of 
trying slaves, by the a]ipoiutmeut of a special Commission, 
Laving been found in practice cumbersome and expensive, was 
amended in 17G5, chapter twenty-six.' Instead of requiring 
that a u(jtico be sent to the Governor or Commander-in-Chief 
petitioning the appointment of a "Commission of Oyer and 
Terminer," it was provided that the Governor should include 
in the warrants api)ointing Justices, a general commission to 
them to try all such cjv-ses, punishable by death or loss of 
member, as might arise. The trial was still to be without a 
jury. A slave convicted of the manslaughter of another slave, 
•was to receive benefit of clergy. The law res]iecting tho trial 
and outlawry of slaves was amended in 1772.' Under the 
former laws on this subject there was great doubt whether 
slaves convicted of breaking and entering houses at night, 
without stealing goods, were entitled to benefit of clergj'. This 
Act declared that they iccre except under eircumstancea which, 
iu a freeman, would constitute burglary. The law as to passing 
sentence of death was also changed, insti-ad of tho unani- 
moQs vote of the Judges, as required by tho old law,* tho cou- 

> Honning, Slatuloa, Vol. VI.. Chup. xxxvill, 1718, p. 104. 

Mbld. Vol. VIII., p. 137. 

»Iht<l. Chnp. Ix, p. 523, Feliriinry s«)S8ion. 

Ui.iil. Vol. VI., (.•'.., p. .x..vviii. i7:s, p :ui. 



46 

currence of four Judges, heing a majority of the Judges before 
whom the case was tried, was suiBcieut aud requisite. As to 
witnesses ; negroes, muhattoes and Indians were excluded 
except in the trial of a slave for a capital offense, and any 
negro, mulatto, or Indian who should, on the trial, be guilty 
of perjury was punished by having one of his ears nailed to 
the pillory and so to stand for one hour, the ear then to be 
cut off, and the other ear treated in like manner ; aud, finally 
by receiving thirty-nine lashes at the public whipping post. 
The witness was to be informed of this ])unishment for false 
testimony before he testified. The master of an accused slave 
might appear for him and defend him. If the slave was con- 
victed aud executed the public was to make good his value to 
the owner as before. 

/ In 1769' these laws respecting the punishment of slaves 
were amended and ameliorated, a sense of natural justice and 
humanity was breaking through the hard ideas and methods 
which governed in this matter. The new law recites that, under 
the old laws for the regulating and punishing of slaves, the 
punishments inflicted were very often altogether dispropor- 
tionate to the offense and entirely contrary to all the princi- 
ples of humanity. Therefore it was in the first place forbidden 
to castrate slaves for any offense other than a rape or at- 
tempted rape of a white woman. In the case of runaways it 
was provided as before that the " taker up " of a slave dis- 
closing the name of his master, should carry him before a 
Justice of the Peace, who should give the "taker up " a cer- 
tificate of the fact. The " taker up " should then deliver the 
slave to his master and receive the lawful reward in return. 
If the " taker up " preferred, ho was allowed an alternative 
method ; instead of carrying the runaway before the Justice 
he might deposit him in the County Gaol, the gaoler of which 
was to advertise him for a certain time. If within that time 
the owner did not appear he was to be turned over to the 
Public Gaol and treated as provided in former Acts. If he 
was apprehended in the same County in which his master 
lived he was to be turned over directly to him. The law as to 
runaways who did not disclose the name of their owners was 
not changed. 

1 Heiining, Statutes, Vol. VIXI., Chap, xix, p. 358. 



47 

§ 8. Peculium of Slaves. 

Slaves oviilontly Imil been permittoil to own property, pro- 
bably after tho manner of the " peculium " of the Romau 
slave, but by the law of 1(;92 tho owner was recpiireil to seize 
and convert all horses, cattle, hof^s, and so-forth, bearing tho 
mark of his slave if he would not have thorn seized and for- 
feited.' By tho Act of 1705, chapter forty-nine,' it was enacted 
that such anii^ials should bo seized and sold for the benefit of 
tho parish. 

Any business dealings with slaves on their own account 
were strictly prohibited. That all the legislation on this subject 
is not extant is apparent from an entry in tho "Calendar of 
State Papers"^ of Virginia, which states that one Thomas Hill 
was sued for trading with negroes contrary to law. Up to this 
date, IGGO, there is no such Statute mentioned in Honning. 
By tho forty-ninth chapter of the Act of 170.J,' trafticing with 
slaves was expressly prohibited under penalty, for the first 
oflFense, of imprisonment for one month, and until bonds were 
furnished in the sum of ton pounds for good behaviour for ono 
year ; a second oflfense was a breach of tho bond, the penalty 
being a forfeiture of four times the value of tho thing trans- 
ferred. If the bond Wiis not promptly forthcoming the ofiender 
received in lieu of it thirty-nine lashes. This law was re- 
enacted in 17-i8,' and again in 1753," chapter seven ; and in 17r)9, 
by chapter nineteen, even having business relations with his 
own slave was forbiddenjto a master. Some owners were in 
the habit of allowing their slaves to go at large and trade as 
freemen upon payment to their masters of stipulated wages. 
It was thought that tliis gave rise to many evils and it was 
therefore prohibited.' 

§ 9. Miscellaneous Laws Eelatinq to Sij^ves. 

Slaves seem to have been employed in positions requiring 
both integrity and intelligeuco, for instance as millers, ])ackers 

' HennlnR, SUtutf-g, Vol III , p. 102. 

»Ibl<l. S35, p. 417. 

J Vol. I., p. 3. 

« HennlriK. Stntiitos, Vol. III., p. 447. 

> Ibl.l. Vol v.. rhap, xlv, p. 017. 

•IbUI Vol. VI.. p. 35C. 

'Ibid. Vol. Vlll., p. 35». 



48 

and weighers. lu 1705 we find a statute providing that slaves 
running a mill, wLo should refuse to grind the grain in the 
order in which it was brought, or who ground it insufficiently, 
or exacted excessive toll, were to receive thirty lashes for the 
first offense, forty for the second, and for the third oifense the 
master was to be held liable to pay for the grain.' By chapter 
nine of the Act of 1732, it was provided that slaves employed 
" to pack, repack and piuse " tobacco were to be punished for 
any neglect of their duty.^ 

Slave-stealing seems to have been an exceedingly grave 
ofifense, and was visited with extremely heavy punishment. 
By the Act of 1732, chapter six,^ it was declared that any 
person stealing a negro, mulatto or Indian slave " shall be a 
felon, and shall suffer death without benefit of clergy." After 
the Revision this extremely severe law was re-enacted almost 
unchanged.^ 

In 1705^ was passed the first law declaring that all negro, 
mulatto and Indian women who were not free, should be 
tithable. In order to encourage the settling of certain towns, 
lately created ports of entry, exemption was granted to settlers 
from the tax on tobacco, and also from the poll tax, slaves 
excepted, for fifteen years after the twentv-fifth of December 
1708." 

§ 10. Emancipation of Slaves. 

(A) 1620-1748. Exactly when free negroes first ap]icarod in 
the Colony seems to be unknown, but it must have been some 
time before 16G0. We find no mention of emancipation in the 
Statutes or other papers until 16G7, when the belief previously 
adverted to, that baptism ipso facto freed slaves,^ was disposed 
of by the legislative declaration that baptism did not free 
slaves ; but the idea had become so firmlj' rooted that it was 
found necessary to reiterate this in 1705.'' 

' Honning, Statutes, Vol. III., Chap, xli, § 11, p, 401. 

sibi.l. Vol. IV., §la, p. 329. 

3Ibiii. p. S24. 

■• Ibid. Vol. v.. Chap, xiv, 174S, p. 547; Vol. VI., Chap, vii, HSS. p. 350. 

5 Ibid. Vol. III., Chap, vii, p. 258. 

<5 Ibid. Cliap. xlii, § 8, 1705, p. 401. 

7 Ibid. Vol. II., Cl'iap. iii, p- 2G0. 

8 Ibid. Vol. III., Chap, xlix, § 36, p. 447. 



4d 

At Iciist oiip of tlio iiionns of conforriiifj froodom was emall- 
cipiitiou b}' last will and tostaim-iit, Tliero ia mention in the 
Calendar of State Papers' of a petition to the Governor by a 
nof^ro in 1()75 for the confirmation of his freedom, granted by 
will to take effect after eight years service, and also for 
damages for having been detained beyond that time. The 
result of the petition is not given. Soon after this, in 1691,' 
emancipation was restricted. The freeing of any slaves was 
forbidden under penalty of ten pounds sterling unless, within 
six mouths after the emancii)ation, the former master should 
provide for the transportation of the freedman out of the 
Colony. It was ag.iiu restricted in 1723.^ By this Act freedom 
was to be conferred only for meritorious services to be allowed 
by the Governor and Council ; slaves otherwise emancipated 
might, after a residence of one month in a parish, be sold 
by the wardens, the proceeds to be applied to the use of 
the ])arish. In 1710* by an Act of the Assembly a negro 
slave named Will, who had discovered and disclosed a con- 
spiracy of slaves the year previous, was made free and granted 
permission to reside in the Colony. By the forty-ninth chapter 
of the Act of 1705- it was declared that the mere fact of having 
been in England was not suflScient to confer freedom. It was 
also enacted that negroes or mulattoes be forbidden to purchase 
servants of other than their own color, or such as were declared 
slaves by that Act, any others becoming free ijvin farto upon 
the purchase, and the same provision applied to the servants 
of any owner who should marry a negro or mulatto. 

(B) 1748-1775. Wo have seen that the fact of not having 
been free in a Christian country, or Christians in their own 
couutrj-, was sufficient warrant for reducing persons to slavery* 
so we maj- infer that having been Christians in their own 
country or free in a Christian country was a sufficient reason 
for manumitting any enslaved persons. We find a law" ex- 
plicitly stating, that if any one should sell a person who had 
been free in a Christian country the vendor should forfeit 

1 Vol. I., p. 9. 

> HennliiR. 8Ututo«. Vol., III., Chap, xvl, p. 8fi. 

J Ibl.I. Vol. IV., Chap. Iv. p. 12r.. 

« Ibid. Vol. III., Chnp. xvl, p. 037. 

» Ibid. p. 447. 

• Ibid. Vol. VI., Chop. vll. 1753, p. 356. 



50 

double the price obtaiuecl. This forfeiture could only occur 
when the victim obtained his freedom. The case of Eobin 
against Hardaway leads us to infer that such was the intention 
of the law. 

If once enslaved the mere fact of having been in England, 
unsupported by other evidence of manumission, was not suf- 
ficient jiroof of freedom.' It was also foiiud necessary again 
to reiterate that baptism did not of itself confer freedom." By 
the Act of 1748, chapter thirty-eight it was forbidden to free 
a slave except for meritorious services and with the consent 
of the Governor and Council, any otherwise freed were to be 
sold again into slavery by the church wardens as before.^ 

With respect to servants bound for a term of years. If a 
negro, mulatto or Indian, though Christian, or a Jew, Moham- 
medan, or other infidel, purchased any Christian or other 
servant, except of his own color, or such as were by law 
declared slaves ; or if any one of them married a person pos- 
sessing such forbidden servants, those servants at once recov- 
ered their liberty.' Some persons made a regular business of 
selling indentured servants as slaves, and it was therefore pro- 
vided that if a man, a second time, sold as a slave an indentured 
servant of twenty-one years of age or over, such servant should 
regain full liberty at once ; if under twenty-one ho should regain 
his liberty on arriving at that age.'* The exact provisions of the 
Statute were that if any mulatto or other servants bound for 
a term of years, were sold in the country, or carried out of the 
country to be sold, the person .selling them was to forfeit to 
the purchaser fifteen pounds over and above the purchase 
money, and be liable to a further penalty of twenty pounds to 
any one who should sue for it. If guilty of the same oflense 
a second time, he forfeited the remaining time of the servant 
who, if under twenty-one years of age, should be bound out by 
order of the Court, in the same manner as wei'e orphan 
children, until he should reach that age ; if already twenty-one 
he went free. If the offender was unable to pay the fines he 

1 Henning, Statutes, Vol. V., Chap, xiv, 1718, p. 547 ; Vol. VI., Chap, vii, 
1753, p. 356. 

2 Ibid. p. 356. 

3 Ibid. Vol. VI., p. 104. 

•< Ibid. Chap. «i, 1753, p. 35G. 

s Ibid. Vol. VJII., Chap, xxiv, 17(55, p. 133. 



51 

wfts Iiold to servo in placo of liis sorvnnt for snt-h time as the 
sorviiiit WHS origiiiiilly boiiiul by law. This sccius to ho tht> first 
Act in any way recognizing the just rights of those unhajijiy 
victims of avaricious and unscrn]iuh)us nitMi. But it goos still 
further in showing a uew-boru consiil(>ration for those unfor- 
tunates. It, in fact, amends the Act of 1753, chapter seven, 
entitled "An Act for the I5(>ttor Govornniont of Servants and 
Slaves." That Act condemned the bastard of a white woman 
whether free or indentured, by a negro or mulatto, to be bound 
by the church wardens to servo for thirty-one years. This 
was now thought altogether too severe, and it was enacted that 
thereafter males sIkjuKI serve only to their twenty-first year, 
and females till their eighteenth year. Children of mulatto 
women bouud for thirty-one years, born during the time of 
service of the mothers were also to servo only twentj^-one years 
if males ; if females, eighteen years. There are, in Jefferson's 
Reports, two cases which illustrate the law verj' fully. The first, 
Gwinu vs. Bugg,' was that of a mulatto named Bugg who 
brought suit for his freedom against one Gwinn. The facts of 
the case were as follows : a freti Christi.in white woman between 
the years 1723 and 1705 had a daughter, Betty Bugg, by a 
uegro. This daughter was bound by the church wardens to 
serve till thirty-one years of age. Before the expiration of her 
servitude she was delivered of the respondent Bugg, who was 
never bound by the church wardens. He was sold by his 
mother's master to the ajijiellant Gwinn. Being twenty-six he 
brought suit for the following reasons ; first, ho himself having 
never l)eeu bound by the church wardens, the master of his 
mother had no right to his service ; second, if he had such right 
ho had forfeited it by soiling him to the appellant ; third, if Ijoth 
the former points wore decided against him, the appellant had. 
though his failure to provide him with necessaries, forfeited 
any right he might have liad. In the lower Court judgment 
was rendered for Bugg. On tho appeal the judgment was 
reuderetl for the api)ellant Gwinn. The second case was that 
of Howell vs. Nethorland." Tho plaiutifTs grandmother was 

1 CoBO on ApponI, p. H7, Anno 17(19 ; un<lci- tho Acta of 1905, Chap, .xllx, 
8 IH., 172?, Chnp. Iv. § 'JU , 17r.:l, Chnp. ii. imd 1".'>1, Chnp. vll. 

JJefT-reoDb UeporW, 'JO., 1770 ; undor tho Acta of 1706, 1723, 17-IH, nnd 
1763 Obap. ii, $ 4 and { 13. 



52 

a mulatto, daughter of a wliito woiuau by a nef:;ro man, buru 
after 1705, aud bound by the church wardens, under the law of 
that date, to serve until thirty-one. After the year 1723, but 
during her servitude, she was delivered of the plaintiff's 
mother who, during her servitude in 1742, was delivered of the 
plaintiff, and he was sold, by the person to whom his mother 
was bound, to the defendant who claimed his services until 
he should be thirty-one. The points in this case are similar 
to those in Gwiun against Bugg : " 1° that if ho could be 
detained in servitude by his first master yet he could not be 
aliened : 2", that he could not be dotaiued in servitude." The 
case was adjudged in favour of the defense without argument 
by the defendant's couuseh 

§ 11. Freemen. 

(A) 1620-1748. It was probably very soon after they were 
imported into Virginia that negroes became divided into the 
two classes of freemen and slaves. Negroes were also divided 
on other lines than those ; they were distinguished as negroes 
and mulattoes, the latter of which included as well half-breed 
Indians as half-breed negroes. The first mention of negioes 
in the governmental archives was in 1630, when the following 
strange sentence was pronounced by the Governor and Council 
on a white man named Hugh Davis who was sentenced " to be 
publicly whipped before an assemblage of negroes and others " 
for having had intercourse with a negress.' In 1659 there was 
a similar case.- And in 1662,^ a double fine was imposed for 
fornication with a negro. Later, it was made an offense 
punishable by banishment for a white jierson to marry or 
cohabit with a negro,^ and in 1705^ this was amended so that 
the punishment should be imprisonment for six months, and 
a fine often pounds sterling, while the minister marrying them 
was fined ten thousand pounds of tobacco, nearly two-thirds 
of his yearly salary. We have already seen the punishment 
visited on white women for having illegitimate children by 

> Hennlng. Statutes, Vol. I., p. 146. 

2 Ibid. p. 552. 

3 Ibi-l. Vol, II,, Chap, xli, p. 170. 
* Ibid. Chap, xvl, 1691, p. 86. 

6 Ibid. Vol. III., Chap, xlix, p. 447. 



53 

iioKroos or imiliiltoos. From all of which it woulil soom that 
tho talk about " natural autipatliv, " with regard U> iningliiif; 
the two racos, has but .slight fouiulatiuu iu fact, aud is rather 
to be attributoil to class pn-jutlico. 

Tho first law wo fiud rolatiug to iipgroea was passod in 
163'J.' It enacted that all persons except negroes should be 
provided with aniniunitioii. After that there is no legislation 
oxtimt with regard to theiu until the Act providing for free 
trade with all nations at ]>eaeo with England.* 

It seems that uegio women as well as other women had 
boon exempted from tho poll tax, therefore an Act was pa.ssed 
iu 1GG8' declaring that thny, in order to distinguish them from 
English women, should uo longer be so exempted. In 1G80* 
negro children were exempted from taxation until their twelfth 
ytar and white children, those of servants, until their fourteenth 
year. Finally,' all free negroes above the age of sixteen were 
declared tithablo. As to owning servants ; as wo have already 
seen" negroes were forbidden to purchase any servants other 
than of their own colour or such as bad been declared slaves, 
all others becoming free on purchase by them, or even bj' the 
marriage of a negro with a white owning such other servants. 
This prohibition was first enacted in 1660," the first Act 
intimating tho existence of free blacks in the Colony. 

Formerly, negroes had been admitted as witnesses in the 
Courts of the Colony, but iu 1705, as we have already seen," they 
were disijualified. Later,' however, they were again allowed to 
be called as witnesse.* in trials for insurrections, etc. The Act of 
1732, chapter seven, says that at that time, negroes, mulattoes 
and Indians had been freiiuontl}' admitted as witnesses in the 
General anil other Courts of the C(jlony, when professing to 
be Christians and being able to give some account of the 
Christian religion. But as they were considered to bo of " such 
base and corrupt natures " that their testimony was uot 

' HeiinloR, StAlutofl, Vo.. I , Chap, x, p. 226. 

1 Sou p. 11, ni)t« 2. In t«xt. 

5 HoiiiilnK, Statutes, Vul. II.. Cliup. vU, p 2CT. 

<It)ld.Cliap. vll. p. 47'J 

» Iblil Vol. IV., Chap Iv, 172:1, p. 12C. 

•8^ p. 49, Note 5. In text. 

THennInK, SUtutos, Vol. II., Chop, v, p 2«0 

* See p . 44, note 3. Iu text. 

* See Ibid, note 6. Iu text. 



54 

credible, and some juries cutirely rejected it, therefore they 
were not thereafter to be admitted as witnesses except on the 
trial of slaves for capital offenses.' It was soou found that 
this law was inconvenient to the highest degree, as under it, 
free negroes, mulattoes, and Indians were enabled to escape 
punishment whenever the only witnesses were negroes, mulat- 
toes, and Indians ; and it was therefore enacted- that all free 
negroes, mulattoes, and Indians who were Chiistians should be 
received as witnesses in all cases against other negroes, 
mulattoes, and Indians, whether free or slave. 

By the Act of 1732, chapter seven,'' it was provided that free 
negroes, mulattoes, and Indians convicted of an offense within 
the benefit of clergy were not to suffer death, but should be 
punished in the same manner as were whites, that is, by being 
branded in the hand iu open Court by the jailor and suffering 
such other punishment as the Court should see fit to order, 
except that when convicted of manslaughter, house-breaking, 
ov the taking of goods to the value of five shillings, and having 
once had the benefit of this Act, they should be put to death. 
They' wei'e, for presuming to raise a hand against a Christian 
white man, to be punished with thirty lashes as before men- 
tioned. The Colonists seemed to be decidedly opposed to free 
negroes since they put such heavy restrictions on emancipa- 
tion, as we have just seen,'' but were tolerant of them, at least 
to the extent that, being already free, they would not permit 
them to be enslaved." 

As to the right to hold office, it was enacted in 1705" that 
negroes should be incapacitated from holding any office what- 
ever, whether civil, military, or ecclesiastical, and a penalty 
of five hundred pounds sterling was attached to the occupying 
of any office, however obtained, with a further penalty of twenty 
pounds sterling for every month they acted as officers ; and 
in 1728'* it is stated, in the " Calendar of State Papers," that 
the Surveyor of Essex and Spotsylvania Counties found it 

1 Henning, Statutes, Vol. IV., p. 323. 

2 Ibid. Vol. v., Chap, xiii, 1744, p. 244. 

3 Ibid. Vol. IV., p. 325. 

* Ibid. Vol. III., Chap, xlix, 1705, p. 447. 

6 See p 49, note 2 and 3. In text. 

' See p. 49, note 6 ; also p. .50, note 5. In text. 

7 Henning, Statutes, Vol. III., Chap. Iv, 1705, p. 250. 

8 Vol. I., p. 214. 



66 

necossiiry to vimlicuto Iiiiusolf from eortiiiii cliiirf^os of luulfoas- 
iiiict' ill ollici), Olio of wliich was tliat he luul emiiloycii no|^roe8 
as chaiu-bourers. As to the voting franchise ; we Gud that to 
have boon f:;raiito(l to all froomeu b}' tho First Charter ;' tlio 
Act of l(J5-i-5, chajitor sovon,-' eoiiliiuHl it to tenants , but by 
the Act of 1C55-G' it was again granted to all freemen, and so 
ill tlie snbseciuent Acts of KJ/JT-S,' chapter ninety-three, iiiul 
1(J7G,^ chapter six. By the Act of 1723,'^ chapter fonr, it was 
enacted that * ' no f ree negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever 
sliull hereafter nave anj' vote at the election of Burgesses, or 
any other oloctiou whatsoover." So, evidently, up to 1705, 
free negroes had the right to hold office, although it is more 
than doubtful whether they ever had the opportunity to 
exercise that right unless as chain-bearer to a Surveyor or 
some other such oflico. Ajid we also see, that up to 1723, 
they possessed the voting franchise and, judging from the 
langiiage of the Statute jnohibiting it, they had exerc ised that 
right. 

PtTTally, we come to the position assigned to negroes in 
the militia; and here wo find them, as usual, relegated to the 
useful, but homely office of " hewers of wood and drawers of 
water." By the Act regulating the training and enlistment of 
militia' they were exom))ted from com])iilsory .service, but 
wort! allowed to enlist as drummers and trumpeter.s. But in 
case of invasion they could be compelled to serve as pioneers 
"or in other servile labours." And if any exempted persons 
appeared at muster, except in the cases expressly provided, 
they were to be fined one hundred pounds of tobacco, or " be 
tied neck and heels" for not exceedingl}- twenty minutes. The 
Act of 1738, chapter two," i)rovided that all free male persons 
over twenty-one years of age might bo enlisted, but that all 
negroes, mulattoes, and Indians so enlisted should a])pear 
without arms, and bo employed as drummers, trumpeters, or 

' Pooro'fl Const lliitlonB. p. 1800, et Heq. 

» MumiliiK, Statutes. Vol I., p. 412. 

' Ihlil. Chap, xvl, p. -103. 

• Ibid. p. 475. 

»IMil. Vol. II., p. 350. 

•Iblil. Vol. IV., 8 23. p. 12r.. 

Mhia.Chap II, 1723, p. IIM. 

« Ibid. Vol. v., p. IG. 



56 

pioneers, or at some such other " servile labours " as might be 
necessary. All free negroes' who were housekeepers, or en- 
listed iu the militia were permitted to carry arms, but all 
others were required to dispose of them, excejit such as lived 
on frontier plantations, and they were only to be allowed arms 
on obtaining a license from a Justice of the Peace. 

(B) 1748-1775. During this period the laws touching free- 
men were very much as before the Revision. As we have 
seen, they were protected from being sold as slaves by the 
pecuniary penalty and loss of service, though by no criminal 
action, or action in tort in favour of the victim.- When re- 
enacted in 1753 there was no change in this respect or, indeed, 
in any other respect, made in tliis law.' Also in 1748 was 
re-enacted the law which debarred them from owning any one 
as servant except such as were of their own colour or were 
declared to be slaves,^ and if one of them married a person 
who owned other servants, the fact of the marriage made such 
servants free at once. Later, in 1753,^ Jews, Mohammedans 
and other infidels, were classed with them in this regard and 
the statute included by special mention. Christian negroes, 
mulattoes, or Indians. 

After reciting the legal results of illicit intercourse with 
negroes or mulattoes on the part of white servants and frea 
women the Statute of 1753" saj's, " and for a further prevention 
of that abominable mixture and spurious issue, whatever white 
man or woman, being free, shall marry with a mulatto or 
negro, bound or free, shall be committed to gaol for six 
months and pay ten pounds currency- to the parish." The 
minister oflSciatiug at any such marriage was to be fined ten 
thousand pounds of tobacco. 

By chapter twenty-one of the Act of 1748,^ all male persons 
of sixteen and over, all negro, mulatto, and Indian women of 
like age, and all wives of free negroes, mulattoes and Indians 
were declared to be tithable. The statute also required the 

1 Ilenning, Statutes, Vol. IV., Chap, iv, 1723, p. 126. 

2 Ibid. Vol. v., Chap, xiv, 1748, p. 547. 

5 Ibid. Vol. VI., Chap, vii, p. 356. 
<Ibid. Vol. v.. Chap, xiv, 1748, p. 547. 
'Ibid. Vol. VI., Chap, vii, p. 356. 

6 Ibid. § 14. 

7 Ibid. Vol. VI., p. 40. 



57 

rpf^istriitioii of nil free mnlo cliiltlron, and the fliildion of .-ill 
servants and slaves. Botweeu the tiiuo of the passage of this 
Act ami the year 1769 there is, apparently, a groat advance 
ill ideas of liberty as regards those races. We fnul the foilow- 
iuj^, considering all things, astonishing statement in a Statute 
relieving free negro, mulatto, and Indian women from paying 
levies. This was done, says the statute, because it was " found 
very burdensome to some negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, and 
is moreover <h'ro<ja(onj of the rights (/ free-lmrn sulijecls," there- 
fore, these and the wives of free negroes, mulattoes, and 
Indians were exempted.' 

By the Act of 1748, chapter thirty-eight, negroes, mulattoes, 
or Indians, were forbidden to carry anj' weapon, and any found 
in their possession were to be seized and forfeited to the 
seizor, and every offender was to be ])unished with not more 
than thirty-nine lashes. Free negroes, mulattoes, and Indians 
who were house-holders might keep one gun and the necessary 
powder, shot, etc., and all, whether bound or free, being on the 
frontier, were allowed weapons of offense and defense upon 
obtaining a license from a Justice of the Peace." In 1755,' the 
Statute for regulating and discijilining the militia provided for 
the enlistment of all men of suitable ago, but onacted that all 
mulatto, negro, and Indian freemen enlisted should appear 
without arms and "be employed as drummers, truni])eters, or 
pioneers or in such other servile labour as they shall be 
directed to perform." Chapter three of the Act of 1757' ]>assed 
for the same purpose, provided for the enlistment of all males 
between the ages of eighteen and sixty, imported servants 
excepted. The free negroes, mulattoes, and Indians were, as 
before, to be emplojed without arms and in servile labour. 

In the Noveml)er Session of the year 17()'.) a law was passed 
disqualifying negroes, mulattoes, and Indians from voting or 
being elected to the House of Burgesses." 

In order to suppress unlawful meetings and prevent the 
much-dreaded slave insurrections, any white man, free negro, 
mulatto, or Indian found in the company of slaves at any un- 

I HminlriR, Sliituti-s. VIII., rtiiip. xxxvll, p. SM. 

' Ibl.l. Vol. VI., CImp. xxivlll, 17 »s, p 104. 

J Ililil. Chnp. II. p. .".:lfl. 

«Ihlil. Vol VII., pl»:i. 

» Ibid. Vol. VIII , Chnp. 1, p. 303. 



58 

lawful meeting, or who should "harbour or entertain a slave" 
without the owner's consent, was to forfeit fifteen shillings or 
one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco to the informer, or 
receive twenty lashes.' For raising his hand against a white 
man^ the free negro, mulatto, or Indian was, as before, 
punished with thirty lashes.^ Chapter five of the Act of 1755 
imposed a fine of forty shillings on any free person making a 
fire in a public warehouse.^ 

Free negroes, mulattoes, and Indians might be witnesses at 
the trial of a slave charged with a crime punishable with death 
or loss of member,^ but were excluded in other cases, except 
that being Christians they could testify against any other 
negro, mulatto, or Indian in any case whatever. If, on the trial 
of a slave, they were guilty of perjury, they were punished by 
having one ear nailed to the pillory and there to stand for one 
hour ; the ear then was cut off, and the other ear treated in 
like manner as the first and, finally, they received thirty-nine 
lashes at the public whipping-post. This penalty was to be 
made known to the witness before receiving his testimony. 
Any negro, mulatto, or Indian not a Christian, found guilty of 
perjury on the trial of a slave for hog-stealing was to receive 
the same punishment as the slave would if convicted; that is, 
thirty-nine lashes at the public whipping-post for the first 
offense ; for the second, to have both ears nailed to the pillory 
for two hours, and then cut loose ; and for the third, to be 
punished as a felon, without benefit of clergy.^ 

1 HeiininR, Statutes, Vol. VI., Chap, xxsviii, 1718, p. 104. 

2 Ibid. §20. 

3 Ibid. S'ol. VI., Chap. v. p. 473. 
* Ibid. Cliap. xx.wiii, 1748, p. 104. 
s Ibid. Chap, sli, p. 121. 



CHAPTER in. 
THE INTERREGNUM, 1775-1770. 

This chapter covers the period of tniusitiou from the ohi 
or Colonial Goverumeut to the new or Commonwealth Govern- 
ment Duriu}^ this period the Colonists had not j'et severed 
their connection with the Crown of England; they were still 
subjects of the Kinr;, but in rebellion, warring for their rights 
and the rights of all men, as afterwards set forth in the 
Declaration of Independence. During this period there wore 
very few laws enacted, and those of course largely related to 
defense and to the creation of a new Government, the old hav- 
ing been overthrown and the Royal Governor expelled. The 
Colony, represented by delegates from the several Counties, 
met in Convention at Richmond and passed the necessary 
" ordinances." The laws relating to private property were 
continuecL The first Ordinance' passed looked to the raising 
of troops, in addition to those already organized, for the 
defense of the Colon}'. The Ordinance I'eciting the grievances 
under which the people were suilering mentioned, among 
other things, that the Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, had 
attempted to infringe " the rights and liberties " of the 
Colonists by declaring their servants and slaves free and by 
arming them to fight against their masters. The Virginia 
forces were increased to nine regiments. The Ordinance for- 
bade the enlistment of any servant, or of any apprentice, unless 
the latter had the written consent of his master. In order to 
intimidate the slaves and prevent them from escaping to the 
enemy, another Ordinance establishing "a mode of punishment 
of the enemies of America in the Colonies,"' provided in one 
of its sections for the disposal of any slaves who were taken 
in arms against the Colony or in the possession of the British. 
The Committee of Safety was given full power to tranHj)(>rt 
snch slaves to any of the "foreign West Indies," and there 
sell them, the money thereby obtained to be used in pur- 

i HonnltiK, SUtutca, Vol. IX., Chap. 1, Dec. mr,, p. 75. 
>Ibld. Cbap. V, p. lUl. 



60 

cliasing arms. If they could not be transported tliey were to 
be disposed of for the use of the Colony in some other manner, 
returned to their owners, or otherwise dealt with accoi-ding to 
the Act for punishing the capital offenses of slaves, the owner 
to be paid the full value of all such as were disposed of in the 
last mentioned manner. 

In the next year, 1776, " the Constitution or form of 
Government of Virginia "' was drawn up by the delegates 
and Eepresentatives of the several Counties and Corporations 
of the Colony in Convention and was adopted unanimously 
June 29, 1776. Kecitiug the reasons for forming a Government 
for Virginia, among others it was declared that as the King 
had prompted " our negroes to rise in arms among us ; those 
very negroes whom by an inhuman use of his negative, he 
hath refused us permission to exclude by law, therefore the 
Government of the Colony as formerly exorcised under the 
Crown of Great Britain is Totally Dissolved." 

' Henning, Statutes, Chap, ii, May 1776, p. 117. 



61 



CHAPTER IV. 
THE COLONIAL CHUECH AND THE NEGRO. 

As the relation of the Church to the people of a conntry is 
a matter of great importauce we will examine the attitnde of 
the Colouiiil Church towards the Coloured Race in Virginia, 
during the period already treated. It will bo necessary first 
to give an idea of the organization and Government of the 
Church in order to understand the work it had to perform and 
to appreciate the progress it made. 

The Church in Virginia was the Anglican Church and, as 
in the mother countiT, was established by law. It was gov- 
erned by the Bishop of London in fact, although according to 
the opinion of the Englisii Attorney-General, delivered in 
1725, it was not legally under his jurisdiction.' At first the 
Bishop exercised his authority over the clergy directly, but at 
the end of the seventeenth century ho appointed a " Com- 
missary " who was stationed in the Colonies and was in 
authority over the clergy as the representative of the Bishop. 
The clergj- in the Colony were required to have certificates 
from the Bishop of London,- and as a rule came directly from 
England, though occasionally clergy from the other Colonies 
were found. 

As to the efficiency of the clergy there are conflicting 
accounts. On the one hand they were declared to be earnest, 
God-fearing men, struggling successfully against almost insur- 
mountable obstacles, both moral and physical, and suffering 
insult and calumny and in many cases the most violent and 
bitter opposition . On the other hand they were denounced 
as a lazy, vicious and worthless set, and it was asserted that 
the majority of them at least had " left their country for their 
countrj-'s good." The facts appear to bo that while there 
were some who were all that could be desired as ministers of 
the Gospel, and to whom Virginia owes incalculable benofitsi 
there were others who were shamefully prominent as habitual 

' Centennial Council, Dloceso of Vn., 178."..18Hr., p. 40. ft nrq. 

> Historical CoUoctlon of the Anioricun Colonial Churoh, Vs., p 2. 



62 

roisterers and roues even in au age of general laxity of habits 
and morals. M. Blair, the Commissary, in a letter to the 
Bishop of London' mentions the trial of a minister for 
fornication with a mulatto woman, and Mr. Morean in a letter 
to the Bishop of Litchfield in 1697 said, that the clergy did not 
observe the discipline or canons of the Church, that they were 
made up mostly of poorly educated men of life and conversa- 
tion " fitter to make heathens than Christians." And again, that 
"several ministers have caused such scandals of late and 
raised such a ju-ejudice that people can hardly be persuaded 
to take a minister into the parish."^ 

Their salaries and the accommodations afforded them gen- 
erally, were greatly complained of by the clergy. In the 
instructions issued to Sir William Berkeley when appointed 
Governor in 1650, was a command that he should see to it that 
every parish had a minister, and tliat when it possessed one it 
should " build a parsonage and add thereto over and above his 
(the minister's) usual pension^ 200 acres of gleable land " for 
the cultivation of which the parishioners had to give some days 
of their own and their servant's labour.* 

Tlie ministers were placed in charge of their parishes by 
two methods ; one was for the vestry to present the minister 
to the Governor for induction upon which he became a life 
incumbent ; the other method, and the one more generally 
observed because of the indifferent reputation of the clergy> 
was for the parish to receive a minister without induction and 
continue him from year to year giving him no title to the 
living and keeping him absolutely at their will and under 
their control. In the many parishes of Virginia there were, 
according to a clergyman stationed there, but three ministers 
inducted into their livings, all the others being simply con- 
tinued at the will of the vestries. The effect of this is seen 
from the following extract : — " This same precariousness is a 
great restraint on their ministers' freedom in reproving of vice 
either in public or in private, being afraid to disoblige any of the 
gentlemen of their vestry."^ The clergy complained greatly of 

' Historical Collection of the American Colonial Church, Va., p. 3G2. 

2 Ibid. p. 30. 

3 Tobacco to the value of about £80 per annum. 

* Historical Collection of the American Colonial Church, Va., p. 1. 
5 Ibid. p. 259. 



63 

the smallnosa of tlioir salaries wliioh were niado up of a grnnt 
from tins Colony, of si> iiiuiiy poiiiKls of toVmrot) per Hiiiuiin, at 
the rate of twelve shilliuf^s per huiulreil pouiuls, a rate very 
much higher than the iii.irket value, ami of gleho lamia some 
of which wore wilhh(>Kl from iho luiiiistors, others of which 
hail ueither houses uor other improvements upon them and 
were not worth ahovo forty ov fifty shillings ]ier annum at the 
best, while in some parishes there were no glebes at all. All 
these, OS before stated, were held, with but two or three excep- 
tions, from year to year at the will of the vestry.' The |ire- 
sentation of this complaint to the Assembly was almost 
immediatley followed by an Act fixing the salary of the clergy 
at sixteen thousand pounds of tobacco and perquisites, and 
ordering the parishes to purchase glebes and furnish them for 
the use of their ministers. 

One of the means taken by the Commissary' to find out 
the condition of the negroes in the Colony was to include, 
among some "queries" sent to the clergy for the purpose of 
ascert^iining the condition of the Church throughout the Col- 
onies the following tpiestiou:' "Are there any infidels bound 
or free within your parish, and what means are used for their 
conversion ? " 

The answers to this question fully illustrate the situation 
and the stand taken by the whites on the subject of the im- 
provement of the negro race. The question was sent out in 
1721, the answers were returned by ministers who had been 
from a few months to a quarter of a century in the Colony and 
sometimes in the one parish. The answers were as follows : 

Westminster Parish, (Incumbent one year.) " No, excojiting 
negroes and mulattoes. My means for their conversion is 
preaching and catechising." 

St. Paul's Parish, (Incumbent fourteen j-ears.) " I have no 
Indians in my parish. The negroes (when their masters desire 

I HonnlDK. SUtutofl, Vol. HI . p. 151. 

I •• The Council for Fori-lBii PlaiitntionH In England directed a letter to Sir 
Wm Dorkoley, Oovernor -for tti« lime lulni; ' iind llin VIrKlnlii Comicll In 
wlilch they onjolno<l that all roll^jlons oxerrlnes nhouM l>o acoonllnR to tho 
proru«<tii>ii <>l the Church of Kn>;laiMl, and that they «lioidd iMicoiiraKo learned 
and orthodox ndnlsterM, for It wiwa Hhanii- for a rich and (Iiiiirlnhlnu pe<>[)le 
to t)<> without a ministry |irM|inrtloiialo to tin' po|iuliilioii, iiml kwIi ii iniriixfrt/ 
v<u> nertM^nry to thr winning of Iht houIm of Ihimr vhom tliry had purcluuKd an 
Blar<M " — VIrKlnIa Caroloruni (NIell), |)(>. 'J^'i oikI 'iK\ 

* UUtorlcal CoUoctlou of the Amurlc<ui Colonial Church, Va., p. 261 tt aeq. 



64 

it,) are baptized wlien they can say the Cliurcli catechism." 

James City Parish, (Incumbent two years.) " I can't say 
we have any freemen infidels, bnt our negro slaves imported 
daily are altogether ignorant of God and Eeligion and in truth 
have so little docility in them that they scarce ever become 
capable of instruction, but My Lord I have examined and 
improved several negroes, natives of Virginia ; and I hope in 
God that by a due observance of the directions for the 
catechists, etc., printed by order of the Society for the Pro- 
pagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts I shall labour to plant 
that seed among them which will pi'oduce a blessed harvest." 

Bristol Parish, (Incumbent thirty years.) " None that I 
know of, except negro slaves and a few Indian servants. I have 
several times exhorted their masters to send such of them as 
could speak English to Church to ^ o catechised, but they 
would not. Some masters instruct their slaves at home and 
bring them to baptism, but not many such." 

Saint Peter's Parish, (Incumbent a year and nine months.) 
"We have no infidels that are free, but a great many negro 
bond slaves. Some of which are suffered by their respective 
masters to be baptized and to attend on divine service, but 
others are not." 

Westover Parish, (Incumbent eight years.) "There are 
none of the latter, especially of those who profess the Church 
of England worship, but many of the former and I take all 
opportunities, both public and private, to exhort all masters 
and mistresses to instruct their slaves in the principleg .of 
Chi'istianity at home and to send them to Church to be 
examined and instructed by me during the time of the cate- 
chistical exercises which I begin in April and continue every 
Lord's day to the latter end of June." 

Hinger's Parish, (Incumbent three years.) " There are 
infidels both bond and free. No other means used throughout 
the Colony but ordinary preaching." 

Newport, (Incumbent ten years.) " Both bond and free, 
and for their conversion, baptism after instruction." 

Stratton Major, (Incumbent fourteen years.) " Generally 
negroes are unbaptized. They that desire it have it, the 
Church is open to them all." 



66 

Wilmiiiptou, (lucumbont oipht yours Jiiul six months.) "Tlio 
wliito people who nro Renerally iiiitives of Onrnt Britain <ir 
Iri'hvnil or th«Mr dopondonts nro Christiana. Tlio ni-j^rooH wlio 
are slaves to thi> whites ciinnot, I think, bo said to bo of any 
religion for as there is no law of the Colony obliRiiip their 
nnustors <ir owners to instruct thoin in the ])rinoi])les of 
Christianity and so they are hardly to bo persuaded by the 
minister to take such paina with them by which means the 
poor creatures {generally live and die without it." 

Blissland Parish, (Incumbent twoutj'-ono years.) " None 
but uegro slaves most of whom are not capable of instruction. 
Those that are, and children, my own and many others, I Lave 
instructed and baptized." 

York Hampton Parish, (Incumbent three years.) " I know 
of no infidels in my 'parish except slaves. I exhort their 
masters to send them to me to be instructed, and in order to 
their instruction I have sot apart every Saturday in the after- 
noon, and catechise them at my glebe house." 

Christ Church Parish, (Incumbent twelve years and four 
months.) " A great many black bond men and women infidels, 
that understand not our language nor me theirs. Not any free. 
The Church is open to them, the word preached and the 
sacraments administered with circumspection." 

South Farnham, (Incumbent twenty-four years.) " The 
infidels in the parish are slaves. The means for their conver- 
sion is divine service performed at Church every Sunday 
\i' 'ch few of them attend to." 

Petsworth, (Incumbent twenty-four years.) " I have no 
Indians in ray parish, bnt those several infidels, negro slaves 
brought from Africa, such as are bom in this country their 
masters very often bring them to the Church or minister to bo 
further instructed that they may be bajitized, and many are 
so." 

Lawn's Creek, (Incumbent twelve years.) "There are some 
Indians bound and free and some negroes bound and free. 
Some masters will have their slaves baptized and others will 
not by reason that they will not bo sureties for them in 
bai)tisra. If the slaves live not afar oflF they como to Church 
and Chapeh" 



66 

Washiugton ParisL, (Incumbent " almost three years.") 
" There are no infidels within my parish except negro slaves, 
some of whom being duly instructed I have admitted to 
baptism and to the Lord's supper." 

Elizabeth City Parish, (Incumbent five years and eight 
months.) " There are many infidels though very few here. 
The owners are generally careful to instruct those that are 
capable of instruction and to bring them to baptism, but it is 
impossible to instruct those that are grown up before they are 
carried from their own country, they never being able either 
to sjjeak or understand our language perfectly." 

Upper Parish of the Isle of Wight, (Incumbent fourteen 
years.) " There are negroes, but as soon as they are capable 
they are taught and baptized by the care of some masters, but 
this is too much neglected by many." 

Christ Church Parish, Middlesex, (Incumbent* twenty-four 
years.) " No free infidels, but several slaves, some few that 
have been born here when of teachable disposition and their 
masters allowing them time to come to me, ujion instruction 
and examination have been publicly baptized and also some 
children of such w'ho have had baptism, some also every 
Sunday attend Church." 

Burton or "Williamsburg Parish, (Incumbent thirty-nine 
years.) " No infidels but slaves. I encourage the baptizing and 
catechising of such of them as understand English and exhort 
their masters to bring them to the Church and baptize the 
infant slaves when the master or mistress become sureties." 

Accomako Parish, (Incumbent sixteen years.) " There are 
very few of the natives, but a great many negroes who come 
to church, of such I have baptized since I came about two 
hundred, and instruct them at their master's houses." 

St. Stephen's Parish, ("came over with Governor Drysdale.") 
" As in other places." 

Henrico Parish, (fourteen to fifteen years Incumbent.) 
" There are that are bound, but their masters do no more than 
let some of them now and then go to Church for their con- 
version." 

Southwark Parish, (Incumbent sixteen years.) " As to the 
negro slaves there are some of their masters on whom I do 



(17 

prevail to have them baptized and taught, but not many." 

Arlington Palish, (Inciimbont eight years.) "The major 
part are iutiilol slaves, I know none free. No other method 
bat the public preaching at the Church, their masters allowing 
them no other time." 

Saint Mary's Parish. (Incumbent twenty j-ears.) "Only 
negroes, particular means discouraged." 

Overmorton Parish. {Incumbent thirteen years.) " There 
are no Indians nor other infidels among us but negro slaves, 
the children of whom and those of them that can speak luid 
understand the English language we instruct and baptize if 
permitted by their masters." 

Saint Anne's Parish. (Incumbent fifteen years.) "No 
Indians live in my parish, there may be six free negroes, 
there are many negro slaves and but very few baptized nor 
any means used for their conversion, the owners generally 
not approving thereof being led away by the notion of their 
being and becoming worse slaves when Christians." 

Thomas Dell, in a letter to the Bishop of London, dated 
June 1, 1724, says : ' As to infidels in bonds or negroes, their 
masters will not, I have rea.son to believe, afTord them time 
from their worldly service to attend that of our common Ma.stcr 
and Savior Jesus, and except they and the Indians had horses 
lent, or their zeal would carry them on foot, because of the 
remote distances, there will be occasion of good laws of the 
country, to second and back their endeavours." Mr. Forbes 
in "An Account of the State of the Church in VirL'inia" 
addressed to the Bishop of London,' says : " there are inlidel 
slaves (viz :) negroes which, as soon as they are capable, are 
taught and baptized by the care of some masters, but too 
much neglected by many." "A proposition for encouraging the 
Christian Education of Indian, negro and mulatto ciiiMren"' 
recites the neglect of the owners in providing the Christian 
instruction of their slaves. It proposed tlienforo that each 
negro, mulatto or Indian child who was able at fourteen to 
recite the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Command- 
ments should be exempt for four years from the levies. Mr. 

I Historical Collection of the American Colonial (Jliurcli, Va., n. 253. 

» Ibid, p .-JIG. 

> Ibid. p. 314, annum 1724. 



68 

Lang, to tlie Bishop of London, February 7tli, 1725 :' " Some 
people are fond of bringing tlieir negro servants to baptism, 
liow soon they are capable to rehearse the Creed, the Lord's 
Prayer and Commandments, and yet these live together after- 
wards in common without marriage or any other Christian 
decency as pagan negroes do who never were entered into 
the Church membership." 

As before mentioned there was prevailing more or less 
generally throughout the Colonies an erroneous idea that to 
make a slave a Christian was in fact to free liim. This was 
declared by several Assemblies not to be the case." This 
erroneous idea, coupled with the belief held by others that 
to make a Christian of a slave was to spoil him, and that while 
having the semblance of men they were really beasts, accounts 
for the trouble the missionaries met with, nevertheless they 
made many converts and baptisms. Mr. Gavin, to the Bishop 
of London in 1738, said that in his first journey through his 
parish, which was situated in the mountains, he baptized two 
hundred and twenty-seven whites and one hundred and seventy- 
two blacks. Going back to the beginning of the Colony there 
is mention of the baptism of a negro child William, at Eliz- 
abeth City in 1624, probably the first in the Colony.^ The 
earliest baptismal registers, just after 1660, were " full of the 
baptisms of negro children intermixed with whites and often 
outnumbering them,'" but a minister reporting in 1712, states 
that it was with gi-eat diflSculty that he persuaded the owner to 
let him baptize three of his slaves. 

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the 
whites, Indians, and negroes in the Colonies was chartered by 
William and Mary. The Virginia Church, being established, 
did not partake of its care so that " Gibson, the Bishop of 
London, 1727, made a powerful appeal (to the Colonists) in 
behalf of the religious education of the negroes " which 
awakened great interest.'^ The Society for the Propagation of 

1 Historical Collection of the American Colonial Church, Va., p. 34G. 

2 Henning, Statutes, Vol. II., Chap. iii. p. 260 ; Vol. III.. Chap, xlix, p. 
447 ; Vol. v.. Chap.- xiv, p. .047 ; Vol. VI., Chap, vii, p. 35fi. 

3 Centennial of the Church in Virginia. Address delivered by P. Slaughter, 
D. D,, at the Centennial Council of the Virginia Diocese, at Eichmond, May 
21, 1H8,5 ; p. 39. 

4 Ibid. p. 40. 

5 Ibid. p. 41. 



C9 

the Gospel was almost from the bcpinning a holder of slavoB. 
" Wo are uow, said Bishop Fleetwood, in a sermon before the 
Soeietv, by the munitlcence of a truly honorable genlh-maD, 
(General Codrington) oui-selves become the patrons of at least 
three huudrod slaves."' Not only the Society for the Propa- 
gation of the Gospel, but the Church in Virginia and the 
separate ministers themselves in some cases became slave 
holders. Chapter ninotocuth- of the Act of 1734 provides for 
the purchase of a glebe for Elizabeth lliver Pavish and for the 
sale of other glebes, the proceeds to be used for the purchase 
of slaves to be fixed forever to the first named glebe for the 
benefit of the parson. In 1745 another Act was passed for a 
like purpose.' The minister stationed at Saint Anne's Parish 
says, '■ I have a house and glebe, and keep servants and slaves 
to occupy the same, but live upon my own j)lantation in the 
parish."* Mr. Gavin in his letter to the Bishop of London' 
saj's, " Next to seeing the Episcopacy so little regarded it gives 
me a great deal of uneasiness to see the greatest part of our 
brethren taken up in farming and buying slaves, tvhtrfi in my 
humUc opinion is unlan/iil/or any Cliristi<ni and in jmrlivular for 
a dergynian." I emphasize the last words as a striking, though 
not the only example, of the beginning of that belief which 
created the Abolitionist of the North during the second 
quarter of this present century, and which precipitated, if it did 
not actually bring about, the Rebellion that ended in the 
complete overthrow of legalized slavery in the United States- 
If the tithes were not paid the minister had the statutory right 
of distraining the slaves of the delintjuent parishioners.' 

We have now seen the difficulties besetting the path of 
those who attempted to care for the spiritual welfare of the 
negro ; in another direction earnest eflforts were put forth to 
benefit him by the establishment of a method of practical 
education, so to speak, combining mental cultivation with in- 
struction in some branch of industry. Special eflforts for his 
spiritual welfare date back in the seventeenth century and a 

' The EnKll>»h Church an<l lt« Bishops, p. 90. 
> HoniiliiK. Statiil.'H. Vol. IV., 1731, p, 440. 
>IM<I. Vol v., Chnp. ixvll, p. 330. 

• Historical Collcctiun of the American Colonial Church, Va., p. 313. . 
» Ibid. p. 3Cn. 

* Henning, SUtutes, Vol. VI., Chap, zxxlv, 1748, p. 88. 



to 

companion desire was to cultivate his mind to some extent at 
least. The scheme seems to have owed its origin to Mr. Com- 
missary Blair, to whom the Church owed so much. But in 
1738 the certainty of failure seemed to have become apparent. 
Mr. Bridges' in writing to the Bishop of Loudon expressed the 
fear that the project would fall through, and in 1754 nothing 
had been accomplished, and Mr. Commissary Dawson writes to 
the Bishop recommending that more frequent conventions be 
held that such things might be attended to.^ And that appears 
to have been the end of it, for we find no further mention of 
such schools. 

■ Historical Collection of the American Colonial Church, Va., p. 361. 
2 Ibid. p. 409. 



CHAPTER V. 
THE NKGRO POrULATION OF VIRGINIA. 

For ascertaiiiiiiK the negro popiiljition of the Colony we hnve 
almost no roIi.iMe diitii. Tho nimiher of the first in)])oitiition of 
nef^roi^s in the "Dutch niaii-of-wane" was twontv, ])crhap8 
anotlior was ailileil from a shij) from Bernuula which arrived 
the same year. We learn of the birth of one child in the 
Colony aViout 1()24, ami when the census was taken in ir)25 
there were only twenty-five negroes in tho Colony. The nnmher 
was increased by births and importations after that, but there 
nowhere ajipears any notice of it until 1C71, wiion, according 
to Niell,' GoNernor IJerheley rejiorbd that there wore not more 
than two thousand blacks in tho Colony, and that by 168-1 they 
had more than doubled. But Henning^ gives tho white pf)pula- 
tiou of the Colony in 1()82, on the authority of Governor 
Berkeley, at forty thousand, and the negroes at two thousand ; 
he also states that there had been only two or three ship loads 
of slaves imported in tho preceding seven years. Anderson' 
Bays that the population at the beginning of the reign of 
George I. — circa 1714— was jiut b}' Camjibel! in his history of 
Virginia, pages 108 to 125, at 95,000 of whom about one-fourth, 
or 23,000, were negroes. And that in 175(1' the whole po])nla- 
tion had iiicrea.sed to 293,000, of whom 120,0t)0 were negroes, a 
very large increase in tho percentngo. It is also stated that 
about ten thousand negroes were imported during the reign of 
George I, 1714-1727, a space of thirteen years.' Alexander 
Spottswood, who was Governor of the Colony from 1710 to 
1722, estimated tho negroes and other servants above sixteen 
years of age at more then 120,000 ; if this is true Campbell's 
estimate of 23,000 mnst be very much too small. Governor 
Diuwiddie whose term extended from 1752 to 1758, estimated 
the entire negro population at 120,150, nearly as many as the 
whites who were supposed to number 173,316.' 

' VlrRlnln Cnrolcirum, p. 401. 

JSuiiitvH, Vci. II . )i. r.i(i. 

> HlHtorj- of the Colonial Church, p. 129. 

♦ Ibid. p. 130. 

^ Industrial Resource* of tho Southwest. Do Bow, Vol. III., p. tOt. 

* Virginia Carolorum, p. 401, nolo 1. 



72 

By chapter four' of tlie Act of 1713, it was enacted that the 
births and deaths of all persons, whether free or slaves, should 
be registered. Pursuant to this Act the Clerk of the Council 
made a report^ for the year ending April 1714. This shows 
births of Christian (white) males 17, females 15 ; negro slaves, 
males 6, females 5; deaths Christian (white) males 2, females 4; 
negro slaves, males 1, females 1. This gives the percentage of 
deaths to births. Christians, males, .11, females, .27 ; negro 
slaves, males, .166, females .20. Deaths to births. Christian, 
.187; negro slaves, .181. Thus showing the death rate 
among the white males to be less than that of the slave 
males in proportion to the births, while among the women 
the figures are very nearly exactly reversed, and the propor- 
tion of all Christian deaths to Christian births is about .006 
per cent, greater than that of the total negro deaths as com- 
pared with negro births, which is a remarkable showing con- 
sidering the life led by slaves and the greater danger 
incurred by them from the very severe laws. 

In some of the counties the negroes outnumbered the 
whites almost three to one, as is shown by a petition which 
was presented in 1727, to have the office of customs removed 
from the private house of K. Carter, Esq., to Urbaunas for 
various reasons, among which was the proximity of the Bay, 
and because there were but few inhabitants and of these the 
blacks were nearly three to one and much more in the more 
exposed portion.^ 

1 Henning, Statutes, Vol. IV., p. 42. 

2 Galenflar of State Papers, p. 17G. 

3 Ibid. 212. 



APPENDIX. 



J. 

Form of Giving Eoyal Assent to an Act of Assemuly op 
THE Colonial GovEnNSCExr. (From a book hi the <,ffi,r 
of the Geiural Court, btbeUcd Prodam. Book, 1748, p. 2.') 

At the Court of St James's, 
The 20th day of Muich, 1745. 

Present : 
The King's Most Excellent Majesty, 
Lord President, Viscount Torriugton, 

Lord Privy Seal, Lord Delawar, 

Lord Steward, Lord Bathurst, 

Lord Chamberlain, Lord Hobart, 

Duke of Bedford, Lord Sandys, 

Duke of Rutland, Mr. Vice Cliaimberlayne, 

Duke of New Castle, Lord Chief Justice Lee. 
Earl Cholmondely, Lord Chief Justice Willis, 

Earl Harrington, Sir John Norri.s, 

Viscount Cobham, Sir John Rushout, 

George Dodington, Esq. 

Whereas by Commission midor the Seal of Great Britain, 
the Governor, Council and Assembly, of his Majesty's province 
of Virginia are authorized and empowered to make, constitute 
and ordain, Laws, Statutes and Ordinances for the Public 
Peace, Welfare and good government of the said Province ; 
which Laws, Statutes and Ordinances are to be as near as 
conveniently may be, agreeable to the Laws and Statutes of 
this Kingdom, and to be transmitted for his Majesty's royal 
approbation or disallowance. And Whereas in pursuance of 

> HenniDg, SUtutw, Vol. V., p. 5C9. 



74 

the said powers an Act was passed in the said province in 
1744, which hath been transmitted in the words following, viz. 

(Here is inserted a complete copy of the Act submitted.) 

And Whereas, the said Act together with a Eepresentation 
from the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations 
thereupon have been referred to the consideration of the 
Comittee of the Lords of his Majesty's most Honourable 
Privy Council for Plantation affairs the said Lords of the 
Comittee did this day Eeport as their opinion to his Majesty 
that the said Act was proper to be approved His Majesty 
taking the same into consideration was pleased with the 
ad\dce of his Privy Council to declare his approbation of 
the said Act and Pursuant to his Majesty's Eotal Pleasure 
thereupon expressed the said Act is hereby confirmed finally 
Enacted and Katified accordingly whereof the Governor, 
Lieutenant Governor or Commander in Chief of his Majesty's 
Province of Virginia for the time being and all others whom 
it may concern are to take notice and conform themselves 
accordingly. 

W. Shabp. 



B. 

Certificate on Oath of Capture of a Kunaway Servant or 
Slave. Taken from the Calendar of State Papers of 
Virginia.' 

" At a Court held for the proof of publick claims, on the 
9th of May, 1726, in King Wm. County, &c., the following 
claim was submitted under oath, <tc. : — 

King "Wm. County, ss.:—l do hereby certify that Martin 
Slaughter of this County brought before me four runaway 
Slaves named James, Koger, Guy <t Sampson, belonging to 
M' Lewis Burwell of York County, which sd : Slaves he took 

1 Vol. I., p. -209. 



up att his own Pluntntiou in this Countey, wliich pr : mv 
jiulgoieut is about forty miles from yo fronch town, yo place 
where ye sd : Slaves were kept — 

Given under my Land this 23' day of Sept: 172-t." 



a 

Pboclamation Repe-vlino Certain Acts of Assembly, Passed 

AT THE ReVIS.U, OF ITIS.' 

Virginia, acr. 

By the Hon'blo Robert Dinwiddie, Esqr. his Majesty's 
Lieutenant-Governor, and Commander in Chief of the Colony 
and Dominion of Virginia. 

A PROCLAMATION for publishing the repeal of several 
Acts of Assembly, passed in the years 1748 and 1749. 

WHEREAS all Laws, Statutes and Ordinances, made and 
passed in the General Assembly, of this Dominion, are accord- 
ing to the Constitution of this Government, by his Majesty's 
Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Great Britain, to be 
transmitted to his Majesty, for his Royal Approbation or 
Disallowance, and such of the said Laws, Statntt-s, and 
Ordinances, as shall be thereupon disallowed or disapproved, 
and so signified by his Majesty under his sign manual and 
signet, or by order in Privy Council, are from henceforth to 
cease, determine, and become utterly void. And whereas his 
Majesty, in Council has been pleas'd to signify his disap- 
probation and disallowance of several Acts passed in the 
years 1748 and 1749, (to wit,) 

(Here follow the titles of the several Acta.) 

I do therefore, in i)ursuance thereof, by this proclamation, 
publish and declare t hat the said Acts of Assembly, are re- 

I Bennlog, SututM, Vol. v., p. 567. 



"v 




t6 

pealed and utterly void, and of none effect : And for the more 
solemn signification thereof ; I do appoint the proclamation 
to bo read and published, at the Court House of the several 
Counties within this Dominion ; and the Sheriffs are to take 
cai-e the same be done accordingly. Given at the Council 
Chamber, this eighth day of April, one thousand seven hundred 
and fifty-two, in the XXV year of his Majesty's reign. 

Egbert Dinwiddie. 
GOD SAVE THE KING. 




Finis. 



I 



